Riverside Energy Park

Representations received regarding Riverside Energy Park

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Riverside Energy Park and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maz Mohammed
" 1. There appears to be no real reason to compulsorily acquire the land land immediately South (or North) of the A206 and immediately East of the River Darent. 2. The detailed map provided by the applicant show an area in yellow and referred to as Major Road - A206. However there is a significant area between the actual A206 and the properties to the North and South of the A206 which is also marked yellow - but is is not the actual A206. 3. Indeed this area is more suitable for this type of work. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dartford and Crayford Creek Restoration Trust
"The Dartford and Crayford Creek Restoration Trust was formed in 2016 to preserve navigation on the Creeks bringing vitality to these waterways, maintain/improve natural habitats, involve local communities in their care and promote appreciation of a rich heritage and environment. The Trust wishes to understand proposed developments (particularly the electrical connection) in the vicinity of the Creeks so that adverse impacts upon navigation or amenity are avoided. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Coal Authority
"I have checked the information held by the Coal Authority and can confirm that the proposed development site (as per Figure 1.1 Rev 0) 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. In the spirit of efficiency of resources and proportionality, it will not be necessary for you to consult the Coal Authority at any future stages of the Project. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
London Power Networks plc
"London Power Networks plc is the licenced electricity distribution network operator for part of the area affected and objects to the scheme unless at the cost of the Applicant there are first provided to it on no less favourable terms suitable alternative sites and suitable alternative rights for all existing apparatus that will be adversely affected either temporarily or permanently by the Riverside Energy Project."
Non-Statutory Organisations
South Eastern Power Networks plc
"South Eastern Power Networks plc is the licenced electricity distribution network operator for the area and objects to the scheme unless at the cost of the acquiring party there are first provided to it on no less favourable terms suitable alternative sites and suitable alternative rights for all existing apparatus that will be affected either temporarily or permanently by the Riverside Energy Project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN) (United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN))
"Please treat this as a holding objection. A fuller objection will be submitted in due course. ------------------------------------ Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ethna Cooke
"I live just a few miles away in Swanley, Kent and have been visiting the Cory fields site for many years for recreation (walking) and wildlife observation. This area looks unremarkable but is part of a large mosaic of first class wildlife habitat which is one of the best in Greater London with a huge diversity of species, especially birds and invertebrates. I wish to register objection to this development on two major grounds. Firstly it will have a detrimental impact on sensitive habitat, some of which will be under the building's footprint, more which will be destroyed during construction process and yet more nearby areas in terms of traffic, pollution, light levels, noise. Secondly, the case for another incinerator is not justified. The aim should be reduction and recycling of waste not just burning it. It is known that the content of what is described as non-recyclable waste (eg household black bags) often contains items which can contain material hazardous when burned (eg containers, canisters of left-over chemical products or paint, items from DIY projects including various plastics, occasionally old asbestos items, none of which should be there, but not everyone thinks about it. I am really concerned about consequent risks to air quality, which does not seem to be improving at all in London."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) on behalf of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc to the Riverside Energy Park Project (“the Project”) National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (“National Grid”) wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. National Grid’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 should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area. The following assets, which form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales are within, or in close proximity to, the Order limits: Overhead Lines • VN (275kV) overhead line route • YL (400kV) overhead line route • ZBG (400kV) overhead line route Substation • Littlebrook 400kV Substation Underground cables • There are a number of high voltage underground cables within or in close proximity to the proposed order limits. National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. National Grid is liaising with the Promoter in relation to the protective provisions for inclusion within the DCO along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. National Grid will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’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. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will negotiate with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve
"I am against this proposal for the following reasons (summary only) It does little to discourage recycling as stressed by the London Mayor and Assembly - indeed recycling rates among the western riverside waste authority boroughs have fallen since they started sending their waste to the Cory Belvedere EfW incinerator in 2012. Air Quality Possible Soil/Water contamination - especially in relation to water voles Shading and lighting impacts on rare flora and fauna Visual Intrusion of the building and further encroachment of what little remains of rare Thames marshes. Noise and vehicle disturbance to roosting and feeding wetland birds on both the Thames foreshore and the West Paddock within the reserve and adjacent to the proposed site. Disturbance to wildlife and hindrance to public and educational visitors if footpath is closed to enable cable laying. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Roffey
"I am writing to object to the proposed building of another incinerator on the Norman Road site in Belvedere on the following grounds: 1) All the reports that I have read point to the fact that we do not need another incinerator; indeed some reports state that building another one will have a detrimental effect on people recycling their household waste (something which all councils go to great pains to promote). 2) Another incinerator will also do harm to the local air quality, something else which is very much in the headlines currently. 3)The building of such a incinerator, as well as the effects of when it is built and up and running, will do irreparable harm to the nearby Crossness nature reserve . Not only is the proposed site (currently brown field sites) the home of seriously endangered species such as Skylark and Little Ringed Plover, but the actual prolonged building process will have a detrimental effect on other species (Barn Owl and Water Vole) already living on the reserve but liable to be upset by the disruption caused in the area. 4) I find it totally incongruous that we as a society will spend millions of pounds on the preservation of old buildings (which I have nothing against ) yet are willing to treat part of our heritage, our natural history built up over millions of years , with such disdain. Lastly , I would point out that incinerators are what I would describe as a fad. It is more than likely that the proposed new incinerator will have fallen into disuse within a decade but the harm it will have done will last for generations and will only be reversed with the passing of a great length of time. On these grounds I object to the proposed new incinerator."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Smith
"The building of this incinerator will have massive negative effect on the nature reserve on the area next to the proposed site. As Bexley borough burns record amounts of refuse already why does it need another incinerator to burn other Boroughs refuse. This is the only area in Bexley where skylarks and ringed plover breed , these proposals would mean the loss of habitat that not only these birds and buttflies and insects use but also small mammals that provide a food source for raptors that visit the area. Future generations of children and nature lovers are being unnecessarily robbed of the chance to visit and study the wildlife if these proposals go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Donna Zimmer
"I oppose this application due to its large visual intrusion right next to Crossness Nature Reserve, it's effect on the biodiversity and wildlife, I agree with the London Mayor that London does not need more incineration as it is better to reduce waste, re-use and recycle. I as a local resident am also very concerned about the pollution this Energy Park would create. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Watts
"Bexley is the best borough in London for recycling, with 53% of its household waste sent for recycling, against an average recycling rate of 43% across England. we dont need another waste incinerator in Bexley "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Davies
"I was until recently a resident of The Royal borough of Greenwich and was in easy reach of the Crossness Nature reserve on the Thames Path between Thamesmead and Erith, I retired from work in 2012 and with plenty of time on my hands needed something to do that was both of interest to me and helped to keep me fit. As a keen birdwatcher, I looked for an area that would fulfil my desire to keep active and be able to carry out my hobby, I found this in a little known but superb nature reserve set up and managed by Thames Water called Crossness Nature Reserve, having found it I become a friend, this was the best thing I could have done as I never realise the abundance of wildlife was so close to such a huge metropolis, I soon learnt that this little part of Greater London was home to many species of birds that were either resident, winter visitors coming to escape the harsher conditions from far off places and, summer visitors coming to breed and raise young on what is fast becoming a scarce habitat, for this area to be built on would deny the increasingly scarcer birds, along with the many people like myself and the regular visits by young children just starting to take a interest in nature and the world around them the opportunity to see and understand the wonders of nature, all this within a stones throw of their homes and schools that are in a densely populated area of South East London. We must consider the needs of local peoples health that visiting this place of tranquillity is sometimes the only thing that keeps them active and enables many people the only way to see places like this, and not being able to travel further afield to see such wonderful habitat due to transport costs. I would also point out that many of the breeding birds that use this site are on the endangered list, these include but not exclusive to, Little ringed Plover that is losing breeding habitat at an alarming rate, Sky larks that are in the same position due to loss of habitat, Cettis warblers, Corn buntins not to mention one of our rarest mammals the water vole, being able to boast that this small but, very well managed and visited site affords us the joy of being able to see these rare creature as well as Peregrine falcons, buzzards, barn owls, marsh harriers, snipe and a host of other wildlife, to allow this to be taken away would and should play on peoples consciences and, I implore you do not allow this amenity to be taken away away from the people of south east London by granting permission to build on the area with all the disturbance and loss of the right type of habitat it would cause. As I mentioned at the beginning I have moved to Canterbury in Kent but, I regularly travel to the Crossness reserve to watch the wildlife and to meet up with friend that I made over the years, I am one of the fortunate one able to travel, many are not and visiting this reserve could be the only time they get out and meet up with other visitors "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Lesley Catchpowle
"I have lived in Abbey Wood for about 15 years and regularly visit the area because of its renowned reputation as a wildlife reserve - I understand that it is one of the best in Greater London. I strongly object to the building of a second Cory incinerator for the following reasons: firstly, as already highlighted its construction will be extremely damaging to the wild life and the local environment . Secondly, the burning of waste is not sustainable and can cause immense damage to the public health of the local community in terms of pollution from hazardious waste (chemicals, plastics, asbestos to name just a few) - the focus should be reducing and recycling waste, not burning it. Finally, I feel there is a social issue to be considered here, the company and its financial backers appear to be under the misguided illusion that it will be easy to locate a second incinerator in this area because it is populated by poor, mainly working class people that have little power to oppose its construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Wild
"We don’t need another waste incinerator in London (as demonstrated by the London Mayor’s objections to Cory’s proposal). Waste incineration is undermining recycling efforts. This has been demonstrated by the drop in recycling in west London boroughs since Cory picked up their waste management contracts at the Riverside Resource Recovery facility – their existing waste incinerator in Norman Road. The very concept goes against national recycling targets of 55% of household waste recycled by 2025, 60% by 2030 and 65% by 2035. Bexley is the best borough in London for recycling, with 53% of its household waste sent for recycling, against an average recycling rate of 43% across England. Another waste incinerator in Bexley is likely to diminish this figure. This area is a wonderful wildlife habitat which is one of the best in Greater London and enjoyed by many people. It has a huge diversity of species, especially birds and invertebrates. This proposal will have a detrimental impact on sensitive habitat, some of which will be under the building itself, more will be destroyed during the construction process and nearby areas affected by traffic, pollution, light levels and noise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Sorrell
"My main objections to the proposed Riverside Energy Park in Belvedere are as follows. The development is a further step towards the destruction of what of remains of the Thames marshes. My house in Upper Belvedere overlooks the proposed development and I have often visited this area since I was a child in the 1950s. Since that time a devastating proportion of the marshes has been destroyed or adversely impacted by, inter alia, the building of Thamesmead, the expansion of industry in North Belvedere and the erection of the existing waste incinerator. I believe that a second waste incinerator is unnecessary. The aim should be to recycle waste rather than burn it and produce air pollution and contribute to climate change concerns. Crossness Nature Reserve is situated next to the development site. During the many years I have visited the reserve there have been increasing encroachments from nearby buildings/warehouses. Its viability/existence could now be threatened by this proposed new development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Mitchell
"We do not need another waste incineration facility especially abutting a nature reserve. More should be done to encourage recycling."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laurence Pinturault Ep Tuft
"I live in Abbey Wood and have been visiting Erith Southern Marsh and Crossness Nature Reserve by the Cory site for many years for recreation (walking) and wildlife observation. Many years ago, I worked for Bexley Council and in that capacity raised several million pounds towards the regeneration of the marshes and Belvedere employment area. At the time, I worked closely with Thames Water and many other local land owners to restore the ditches and water levels, promote water vole habitats, create ponds and wader scrapes, create footpaths to encourage public access, create bird hides, promote biodiversity. Much work was done also on sorting out horse grazing levels and creating horse paddocks - at the time, the grazing was completely unmanaged and the sites very overgrazed with desperately poor horse welfare. Erith marshes and Crossness Nature Reserve may look unremarkable but are part of a large mosaic of first class wildlife habitat which is one of the best in Greater London with a huge diversity of species, especially birds and invertebrates. I wish to register my objection to this development on two major grounds. Firstly it will have a detrimental impact on sensitive habitat, some of which will be under the building's footprint, more which will be destroyed during construction process and yet more nearby areas in terms of traffic, pollution, light levels, noise. Secondly, the case for another incinerator is not justified. The aim should be reduction and recycling of waste not just burning it. It is known that the content of what is described as non-recyclable waste (eg household black bags) often contains items which can contain material hazardous when burned (eg containers, canisters of left-over chemical products or paint, items from DIY projects including various plastics, occasionally old asbestos items, none of which should be there, but not everyone thinks about it. I am really concerned about consequent risks to air quality, which does not seem to be improving at all in London. I am very concerned about possible Soil/Water contamination - especially in relation to water voles. Shading and lighting impacts on rare flora and fauna. Visual Intrusion of the building and further encroachment of what little remains of the fast disappearing Thames marshes. Noise and vehicle disturbance to roosting and feeding wetland birds on both the Thames foreshore and the West Paddock within the reserve and adjacent to the proposed site will cause serious problems for wildlife. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr T. J. Minns
"As a local resident of Bexley borough, I have been using the riverside walks for many years. In particular I've been watching and enjoying the wildlife there, and although it may look devoid of nature, it, in fact, holds a remarkable diversity of flora and fauna. Throughout the recent development of the area, I have seen a decline of wildlife such as skylarks, lapwings, and reed buntings, as well as swifts and martins. All due to the destruction of their habitat. Any more habitat loss would spell disaster, not only for the bird life, but for the reptiles and floral species that at present occupy this ground. I wish to register objections to this development on three counts. 1. The layout of the proposed REP would see a large amount of operational vehicular movement adjacent the the nature reserve. This will cause considerable disturbance to the reserve and its inhabitants. This is assuming there would be any inhabitants left after all the disturbance from the building process that would be involved over this site. 2. There is concern for the air quality which has already suffered from the build and operational running of the first incinerator. Bringing more rubbish from London to burn will inevitably release more noxious gasses into the atmosphere. It is common knowledge the transported non-recyclable waste invariably contains material which when burnt releases hazardous fumes. Waste run-off in the form of liquids can seep into the soil and hence into our water system. The result of this could have devastating consequences to the inhabitants of the surrounding area. 3. If the REP is allowed to be built it will, from the proposed plans, run right against the reserve boundary. This sensitive area will be effected by loss of light levels (effecting the breeding process), an increase in noise levels (disturbance of the young), as well as disturbance from increased traffic movement (heavy traffic will cause vibration through the ground, disturbing the adults during breeding). Rubbish pollution is also a concern, as it is inevitable that spillage will occur from time to time. Blown waste matter will have a devastating effect on the area and the flora and fauna within. This last point has been covered many times on national television throughout the world. Thank you for taking time to consider the above points of objections."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard P Winston
"As a local wildlife photographer I clearly have an interest in safeguarding sites of habitat and environmental importance. I am also a long-standing member of Crossness Nature Reserve and over the past several years have witnessed the gradual but obvious erosion of prime habitat for the birds, mammals and insects that live and breed at Crossness. Further development on or near the site, particularly another incinerator, does not sit well with the boroughs proclaimed targets on recycling of waste. No doubt, if an incinerator is built, the disturbance to wildlife and the public who use Thames Marshes for recreational purposes would be lengthy and detrimental to the health of the boroughs inhabitants, both human and otherwise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Bell
"I live half a mile from the existing incinerator in the Belvedere Park development. I object to the application on these main outline grounds: - Even more air pollution so close to a newly developed residential area (Belvedere Park) with a high proportion of families with young children. - The dichotomy between Bexley Council's encouragement of residential development in Belvedere Park (and in other areas in the vicinity such as Thamesmead), where 2 new blocks of around 70 flats are expected to be granted planning permission, and the acceptance of a second incinerator with all that entails for air pollution and visual impact. - The catastrophic effect both the building stage and the completed second incinerator will have on bird, mammal and reptile life in one of London's last remaining areas of grazing marshland known to be prime habitat for rare species such as water vole, skylark and slow worms (both in the marshes and on the Thames riverbank). - The catastrophic effect both the building stage and a completed second incinerator will have on enjoyment of Crossness Nature Reserve. - The evidently deleterious effect on London's recycling economy - which is circular and not, as is the case with an incinerator, linear - the erection of yet another incinerator demonstrably runs completely counter to. - The obvious and horrific visual impact yet another incinerator will have for anyone who currently uses the Thames path and Crossness Nature Reserve. - The fact that the second incinerator (unbelievably marketed as an "Energy Park" by Cory and its PR partners during their "public consultation") will only have capacity, according to Cory's own figures, for up to 3% genuinely renewable energy generation with the remaining 97% generated via incineration. While not part of my outline objections, I would like to state once more that Cory's "public consultation" was a disgrace. Any local residents reading it would have thought they were about to get a new children's waterslide park rather than a waste incinerator. Providing no obvious information which would allow anyone to make a reasoned judgment, it was not even completely clear that what was being proposed was a second incinerator with crucial information (such as the fact that 97% of energy generated would be via incineration) not presented, as it should have been, in a clear and obvious way at the very forefront of the documents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Fairbairn
"Concerns re: Health in relation to the high incidence of asthma in London The closeness to the nature reserve and the effect on wildlife The unequal siting of incinerators where this will be the fourth within 5 miles of Belvedere (DA!7). Better use of the land eg re-cycling plant, solar panels "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Susan Mitchell
"I live in Abbey Wood and have been visiting the area by the Cory site for many years for recreation, mostly walking and exploration with friends, family and children. By joining Friends of Crossness I have been introduced to, and privileged to witness an amazing variety of bird species, and invertebrates at Crossness. This is a first class wildlife habitat, one of the best in Greater London, and one which I believe Bexley should not only be proud of but be doing its best to conserve. I wish to register objection to this development on two major grounds 1. The detrimental effect it will have on wildlife • Noise and vehicle disturbance to roosting and feeding wetland birds on both the Thames foreshore and the West Paddock within the reserve and adjacent to the proposed site. • Shading and lighting impacts on rare flora and fauna • Possible Soil/Water contamination - especially in relation to water voles • Visual Intrusion of the building and further encroachment of what little remains of rare Thames marshes. • Disturbance to wildlife and hindrance to public and educational visitors if footpath is closed to enable cable laying.’ 2 The detrimental effect it will have on air quality and recycling rates. Recycling rates among the western riverside waste authority boroughs have fallen since they started sending their waste to the Cory Belvedere EfW incinerator in 2012. It is known that the content of what is described as non-recyclable waste (eg household black bags) often contains items which can contain material hazardous when burned. I am really concerned about consequent risks to air quality, which does not seem to be improving at all in London.The aim should be reduction and recycling of waste not just burning it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ralph Todd
"An unnecessary requirement and intrusion on Bexley Borough. Recycling has gone down in West London since they shifted their waste to the existing Cory incinerator and this proposal does nothing to reduce waste/recycling only allows Cory to make more money. Noise and light pollution of nearby Local Nature Reserve and rare wildlife Visual intrusion to LNR "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Turvey
"I object to another Incinerator being build close to the earlier ones. surely we should be recycling. ie less pollution than in burning. [sometimes hazardous waste is also incinerated]. Bexley is good at recyling - why detract from this - it should be a target for others to aim for .I have been a member of nearby Crossness Nature Reserve for at least ten years and what a delight it is for all visiting people & is open to everyone. School children visit and learn about Nature which is particularly important. There is a huge diversity of species . plus endangered species such as Skylark . Water Voles.Over time many have labored to achieve this even with earlier encroachments. What a waste of all that endeavor for the Community. The title Riverside Energy Park - not sure where the 'Park' features! - a misnomer. Thames Water gave this land over in mitigation for their impact on the area but this new building risks all this being 'thrown away'. Any new building will add a further major impact on this Reserve ie traffic, light pollution/air quality , noise, shading of areas of rare flora and fauna. Ultimately it will disturb roosting and feeding birds both on the Thames and on the Reserve - a complete and utter shame Surely we should be saving rare Marsh Thames areas not concreting them over. Importantly the best habitat is closest to this Incinerator and this will be the most severely impacted on . Go visit - I presume those in power and making decisions will do so - be impressed, look up - look down and thereby make the right decision."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
"Dear PINS, We write following the developer's letter of 3rd January to the Maritime & Coastguard Agency. Our Navigation Safety Branch have since reviewed the application documents supplied. We note that the proposed project will include the construction of new jetty facilities on the River Thames, and will additionally seek to use the waterway as an alternative to road use, which will increase marine traffic on the River. This infrastructure will likely require a marine licence, at which time the MCA will be invited to comment on the application from a navigation safety perspective. The project falls within the Statutory Harbour jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority, who are compliant with the Port Marine Safety Code. We would therefore expect the developer to liase and consult closely with the PLA to consider potential impacts on existing marine traffic, and the PLA's Safety Management System (SMS). A Navigation Risk Assessment should be carried out to support this, with potential risk mitigation measures agreed with the PLA. We look forward to being consulted further as the project develops. Yours Sincerely, Thomas Bulpit Marine Licencing Lead MCA Navigation Safety Branch "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Knights Solicitors on behalf of SAS Depot Limited
"S A S Depot Limited (“SASDE”) opposes the application by Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (“Cory”) for development consent for the proposed Riverside Energy Park (“REP”). Cory seeks to acquire permanently, by compulsory acquisition, 6,362 m² of land owned freehold by SASDE: see page 6 of Cory’s Book of Reference, Land Plan number 02/06 and Article 21 of the draft DCO. Cory also seeks to create and compulsorily acquire new rights over land, take temporary possession of land and extinguish or override existing rights over land. The land owned by SASDE is its sole commercial property asset. Its only income is provided by rent from the property. The land owned by SASDE is of an asset class which is scarce in south east London/north west Kent and it is very difficult if not impossible to replace. Cory accepts, correctly, that it is necessary for the decision-maker in respect of the application to be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition in the DCO. However, that is not the limit of the necessity test. The decision-maker must also be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of SASDE’s land. The same principle applies with respect to any other of SASDE’s interests affected by the application. Section 122 of the Planning Act 2008 is supplemented by the September 2013 Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (“the Guidance”). Cory accepts, correctly, that the decision-maker will take the Guidance into account. Contrary to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Guidance, Cory has not demonstrated that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition of SASDE’s land have been explored, its proposed interference with SASDE’s rights does not meet the tests set out and compulsory acquisition of SASDE’s interests is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. Cory’s conduct has also been in breach of paragraphs 24-30 of the Guidance as particularised in the 12 December 2018 letter from their solicitors (Knights). The letter also draws attention to other of Cory’s failings. The assertion in paragraph 6.6.2 of the applicant’s Statement of Reasons that it, “has engaged in extensive consultation and negotiations with all persons with an interest in the relevant land in order to try to avoid the need for compulsory acquisition wherever possible” is an assertion which does not withstand scrutiny with respect to SASDE. The same goes for the assertion in paragraph 8.3.2 that detailed discussions are ongoing, “in order to ensure…concerns are taken into account and accommodated wherever possible.” The Statement of Reasons at Appendix B pages 57-58 manifestly misrepresents the status of negotiations between the parties. Cory’s late, conditional and inadequate undertakings to pay SASDE’s costs and fees have not yet been honoured despite payment requests. SASDE also has concerns regarding the sustainability, practicality and environmental impact of the REP scheme. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Western Riverside Waste Authority
"(1) Western Riverside Waste Authority is the statutory body responsible for the treatment of waste from four London Boroughs (Hammersmith & Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, Lambeth and Wandsworth). It is supportive of development initiatives which enhance the waste treatment infrastructure available to its constituent councils and to London in general, especially (given the lack of suitable sites within its area and the lower carbon footprint of waterborne traffic) where such facilities are accessible by river. (2) The Authority entered into a public private partnership agreement with Cory Environmental Limited in 2002, pursuant to which the Riverside Resource Recovery Energy from Waste Facility (“Belvedere”) was constructed on a project finance basis by another Cory group company, Riverside Resource Recovery Limited (“RRRL”), a special purpose vehicle. The Authority is the cornerstone customer of Belvedere/RRRL and is its lender and owner of last resort under quasi-PFI arrangements. Without the Authority’s support Belvedere would not have been able to have been constructed. (3) Under the contractual arrangements the Authority has been granted a leasehold interest over the Belvedere site (the “Site”) (on part of which the new Riverside Energy Park (“REP”) is now proposed to be constructed) as security for the waste disposal obligations accepted by RRRL in relation to the Authority’s waste stream. This security is considered essential to protect the Authority’s interests (which extend until 2046) given the highly leveraged nature of RRRL, a special purpose vehicle. (4) The Authority also has rights to require that land at the Site is made available for the construction of appropriate facilities should a change in law require waste to be treated other than by mass-burn incineration. The Government’s Resources and Waste Strategy (the “Strategy”), published in December 2018, proposes that food waste will in future be required to be treated separately from the remainder of the waste stream – which makes the maintenance of availability of land at the Site for the development of alternative technology facilities strategically important to the Authority. (5) Finally, it is proposed that REP will share certain assets with RRRL (including the jetty and access roads), leading to the risk of congestion and/or disruption to the receipt of the Authority’s waste by Belvedere/RRRL. (6) The Applicant and RRRL are associated companies, both part of the wider Cory group. The Applicant should not be permitted to frustrate the (for Cory now inconvenient) arrangements set out above (which were freely agreed by Cory with the Authority in order to enable the development of Belvedere) by granting it compulsory purchase powers over any part of the Site. To do so would potentially prejudice treatment routes for future waste generated by the Authority’s constituent councils, especially in the light of the Strategy. It is submitted that this would not be in the public interest. (7) The Authority is in early stage discussions with Cory relating to REP but is not yet in receipt of any proposals from Cory as to how the interests of the Authority and its constituent councils are to be protected. It is hoped and anticipated that a mutually acceptable solution will be negotiated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Thompson
"I am a local resident, [redacted] and keen amateur naturalist and birdwatchers. I have several concerns over this development. 1.The impact of the building phase on the surrounding areas and nature reserve, noise, light and builders mess will all impact severely on the tranquility and benefits to the habitat. 2. The proposed cable route to take the power from the incinerator through the nature reserve and when to the main road the traffic disruption caused trying to get the cable to dartford 3.Once completed there will be ongoing noise and light pollution and double the road traffic at least on Norman road 4. The microfine particulate emmisions from the incinerator will be dispensed into the air my child breathes at school or that I inhale whilst running along the river path 5. My understanding is that unopened black bagged non recyclable rubbish is to be burnt but there are no guarantees that recyclable material won't be unnecessarily burnt and maybe worse that hazardous materials will make it into the process "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Putson
"Cory are returning to the size of incineration plant that they first applied for in the 1980's.They got half and this is their continuing attempt to achieve the full 1980's application. Sadly, I am opposed as I believe that incineration is not the answer. We need to be recycling, re using and reducing our waste not burning it. Despite their vastly improved scrubbing of waste from their chimney, they still are unable to answer the serious question of ultra fine particulates which are released and are a dangerous health concern for local residents. LBB when asked were completely flummoxed by this question. Incineration is an old technology that works for providing energy and in some instances heating, but it fails dramatically on carbon reduction.On one consultation I asked about carbon usage by Cory and I received three different answers from three different personnel, Low Carbon, Carbon Neutral AND Carbon Negative. Clearly it cannot be all three and I still await the answer I was promised from Cory. There is Crossness Nature reserve immediately adjacent to the proposed development and the artificial lighting that will surround the proposed new site will have a serious and adverse impact on the migration birds and other wildlife that flock to, and nest, at this special reserve.Despite this being an area of Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt there appears to be a burgeoning planning and build ethos detrimentally impacting this Nature reserve."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hamblin
"I am very concerned about clean air to breathe and micro particles. Also about other effects on the until satisfied on these matters I would not like the work to proceed"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bexley Natural Environment Forum
"Rather than build new facilities such as this, BNEF would prefer a more London wide sustained approach to recycling. Evidence is suggesting that recycling in London is dropping as a result of such facilities. We wish to see the UK move rapidly towards a modern, circular, zero waste economy in which non-recyclable materials are no longer produced and incineration is ended and everything is made for long life, ease of repair and is then re-used, recycled or composted. Additionally, there appears to be massive scope for increasing home garden composting in Bexley. Given the poor, sandy nature of much topsoil in Bexley, increasing the amount of organic matter in garden soils will improve water-holding capacity and reduce the need for watering. The fact that this facility will burn food waste rather than composting is a missed opportunity. Whilst the actual construction is to be within Cory’s existing site footprint, we could not find a map showing the area to be used for construction vehicles and materials. The text description is somewhat ambiguous, talking about formerly used land to the south of the existing incinerator and west of Norman Road. It should be noted that the green field between the incinerator and the Cory/Borax fields falls within the Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation boundary, and that the Cory/Borax fields, for which outline planning permission has been granted for large data centres, has been identified as of at least regional importance for invertebrates as well as nesting by red-listed birds. We now understand that the proposed laydown areas (construction compounds) are indeed to be on the west side of Norman Road, in the open mosaic areas that were previously home to the old electric substation. This area also backs onto Norman Road Field where Kestrels breed and disturbance should be considered. One publication states that delivery of waste will predominantly be by river, though Cory has recently been applying for increased lorry movements, whilst another document essentially says it is looking at the economics of river vs road and hasn’t decided on the mix yet. BNEF is against heavier lorry traffic not only in this area, but across the Borough generally, where it will have an adverse effect on air quality. It is unclear as to whether Cory has looked at the combined air quality effects of Incinerators 1, 2 and the Thames Water Sludge facility, and has not made plain whether or not this has been set within the context of wider London air quality data and problems. BNEF is also concerned as to the impacts of nitrate etc, deposition on the LNR at Crossness and Rainham Marshes. Our preferred route for the electrical cabling out to Littlebrook Power Station is the one that would avoid digging up the footpath across the LNR. Clearly there will be another large visual intrusion, blocking views out to the Thames, which Cory’s own assessment accepts is of significant negative impact. Artist’s impressions avoid illustrating the combined effect of these new proposals plus the four-storey data centre, in surrounding Crossness LNR by walls of very tall buildings on two sides. What matters to ordinary users of the area is the view from the Belvedere area of the Thames scarp slope, and ground-level from the marshes, whereas the Cory riverward view mock-up is an aerial one that minimises the apparent loss of sight of the river whilst being one that hardly anyone (other than a few helicopter pilots and passengers) will actually experience in practice. We are concerned that more night lighting will be introduced to the marsh and both the amount, directionality and spectra of that need to be taken into account. We understand that Cory has settled on the stepped roof option for the new incinerator building, for reasons of efficiency of the rooftop solar arrays and safety of access, though this will not blend so well as the curved roof option with the existing incinerator and sewage processing facilities adjacent to this site. Bexley Natural Environment Forum repeats its suggestion that Cory should look instead to put solar on the roof of the existing incinerator, and should look at leasing local warehouse roofs for the installation of significant additional solar capacity, rather than relying on an unsustainable extra incinerator to implement this feature of the scheme. Cory says it believes that there will be no significant negative impacts on biodiversity from the construction, operation or decommissioning of the proposed new facilities. These are direct local effects of course. BNEF contends that supporting a resource-wasteful economy by undermining recycling has indirect effects, and that while Cory occupies the current footprint, the scope to compensate for the loss of open space elsewhere on the marshes (most recently Cory’s own Data Centres, and the proposed ‘Innovation Centre’) by restoring other areas is unfeasible in this area, and therefore will negatively impact local biodiversity. A lot of the larger open spaces left in London are designated as sites of importance for wildlife and, in requiring large buildings, the pursuit of further incinerator capacity in London threatens such sites, as seen with the bitterly opposed Beddington Farmlands and Pinkham Way incinerators. BNEF is opposed to this development as it is currently proposed as outlined above. Should there be a decision that supports the new incinerator, we would like to see a number of conditions attached to such consent and listed below:- - Living roofs where possible; - Compensation instead of, or as well as ‘mitigation’. That is, the return of an equivalent area from concrete to nature, rather than the constant diminution of wildlife areas and de facto policy of allegedly protecting and enhancing it by cramming it into ever less space. Can Cory buy, and return to nature, any lay-down area on Norman Road that has not yet been given permission for building on?; - Tight limits to be put on the amount of lorry traffic bringing waste to the overall facility (including the existing incinerator); - Cory to provide funding for schemes to increase home composting and recycling in Bexley; - Cory to fund schemes to increase recycling rates in the west London Boroughs that send waste to the existing Belvedere incinerator; - Cory to contribute to waste minimisation schemes, particularly research to find environmentally friendly substitutes for materials that commonly go for incineration; - Cory to help initiate projects to increase the availability of recycled products in Bexley. I trust that this submission meets with your criteria. For and on behalf of Bexley Natural Environment Forum. Dr. Ray Gray (Chair BNEF) "
Non-Statutory Organisations
East London Waste Authority
"ELWA wishes to raise a number of issues on the DCO application for the Riverside Energy Park (REP). The application appears to be at odds with the Draft New London Plan (DNLP) and the London Environment Strategy (LES), which assert that no new energy recovery facilities (ERFs) are required in London for the treatment of residual waste, beyond the planned facilities at Beddington Lane and Edmonton. The Applicant cites a report by Tolvik Consulting as the evidence base for a regional capacity shortfall to justify developing a second ERF at Belvedere, but the difference between the conclusions of this report versus the DNLP/LES has not been addressed. ELWA understands that the REP will need to achieve the LES’s ‘carbon intensity floor’, which is likely to require the supply of heat to nearby users. However, the existing Riverside Resource Recovery Facility (RRRF) has not yet found local heat users, and there appears to be a lack of commitment to ensuring such offtake is in place for a second facility. The assertion that a second ERF would be necessary to provide backup to any heat offtake the RRRF eventually secures does not fit with ELWA’s understanding of how ERF-supported heat networks function. It is very rare for all incineration lines to be taken offline together, so the RRRF could continue to supply heat even during maintenance. In addition, robust heat networks should have combinations of thermal storage and backup boilers to ensure certain supply of heat energy to customers, negating the need for a second ERF unless the demand for district heat was so significant as to justify the need for a second source (which it does not appear to be). It is not clear if the provision of a second large heat source immediately next to an existing (but still unconnected) facility would support the development of a robust London-wide heat network. ELWA understands that the Mayor of London supports the use of the River Thames for commercial traffic, particularly where this reduces road congestion. It is not clear where additional riparian sources of waste are, beyond those already supplying the RRRF. The case for the REP’s development has not addressed where the waste would originate, instead using generalised figures from the Tolvik analysis for overall projected residual waste treatment capacity requirements across the region. There needs to be clarity about the true likely sources of the waste, the suitability and availability of existing riverside infrastructure to cope with this material, and the environmental impacts of additional commercial movements on the Thames that this would generate. These can then be set against the likelihood and impacts of additional road transport movements that may be needed to deliver the required volumes of waste into the second ERF to ensure the facility was able to operate at an optimum capacity. Deliveries of waste by road from within London may otherwise be required to enable the facility to contribute to the DNLP/LES policies on self-sufficiency and use of local waste infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham William Parry
"Throughout my entire life in Rainham I have witnessed the many projects that have contributed to the degradation of the air quality. From the early days of “Ford Fallout”, as it was known, that would pollute the area with fumes and heavy metal particles. The sewage works that have for many years produced the “Rainham Wiff”, various chemical companies in Ferry Lane, the waste processing and land fill at Coldharbour Point and the Ingrebourne Hill Land Fill that created clouds of dust that was palpable as well as evident in coating all exposed surfaces for miles around. Being down wind of the prevailing air movement from London also brings a lot of the pollution that is continually being reported and highlighted by the London Mayor. Any additional pollution, especially from incinerated waste, that is likely to include noxious gases, can only be considered unacceptable. Failure to consider the impact of any additional pollution into the environment, especially when it’s so close to the RSPB Rainham Marshes and the SSSI of the Ingrebourne Valley, will be considered a dereliction of the duty of care, that a company has. Eur Ing G W Parry CEng., MIMechE., BSc(hons) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Jon Cruddas MP
"As the Member of Parliament for Dagenham and Rainham I am incredibly concerned about the impact an EfW incineration plant of this size would have on air quality and biodiversity in my constituency. An in depth report by the Greater London Authority stated that “incineration of solid waste can lead to emissions of toxic heavy metals, dioxins, and other substances that are detrimental to human health and biodiversity.” “These impacts would be widespread across Rainham.” They also highlight that this would have negative impacts on biodiversity across the Ingrebourne Valley and Rainham Marshes. See full report here: [Redacted] Furthermore the applicant has not demonstrated that there is any demand for a facility of this size anywhere in their application documents as published by the Planning Inspectorate. Having looked at the Environmental Statements and subsequent Environmental Impact Assessment I see that the applicant have also highlighted that this development would lead to an increase in air contaminants such as nickel, nitrogen, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur acid, ammonia and arsenic. The maps provided as part of the EIA report outline that any impacts on air quality would directly affect Rainham and Wennington Ward in its entirety, and the area of South Hornchurch Ward south of Rainham Road. See ‘Cory Riverside Energy 6.2 Environmental Statement Figures (part 1 of 6)’ page 12 fig 4.1 and pages 23-25 figs 7.5-7.7: [Redacted] There is a lot of development planned for the south of my constituency including over 3,000 new homes, two new schools, leisure facilities and open spaces at Beam Park directly opposite the site of this proposed project. The Environment Agency explained in their scoping report that there is a likelihood this development would pose a risk to human health due to the potential emissions of persistent organic pollutants. Therefore it is important that the applicant carry out a human health risk assessment. This should take into consideration not only existing residents but also future residents across the Beam Park and Barking Riverside development areas. As the Member of Parliament for Dagenham and Rainham, incorporating South Hornchurch and Elm Park it is my duty to represent the interests of my constituents. There is a strong sense of feeling against this proposal in the local community and a petition has been raised to oppose development. I will be submitting the petition on behalf of my constituents as part of the Examination process of this application. As an ‘Interested Party’ I am completely opposed to this development and what it would mean for air quality, human health and biodiversity in my constituency. Thank you for taking these comments on board. Yours sincerely Jon Cruddas MP Member of Parliament for Dagenham and Rainham incorporating South Hornchurch and Elm Park ------------------------------------------- Please See Attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Farnsworth
"As a Rainham resident I have noted the concerns expressed by my MP Mr Jon Cruddas and I wish to make my own concerns known regarding potential reduction in air quality here in Rainham due to pollution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs D Khoti
"Please do not allow this toxic incinerator in Rainham. It is already densely populated and we are fed up with all the toxic dumping that happens here. The air we breathe is disgusting, our village smells of rancid waste and excrement. We will soon have thousands more residents and they will also suffer. Veola waste already in the area and landfill makes the area STINK. Nearby farm ps also pollute the area with toxic smells. RAINHAM IS ALREADY A [Redacted] ...IT STINKS ENOUGH ALREADY. Please stop with the dumping in Rainham. Thanks"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natasha Agius
"I am against the proposal to build an incinerator in Bexley as it will poison the air where I live. This will negatively impact on my health and the health of my children and animals. It will adversely affect my quality if life and the quality of life of all that live in this and surrounding areas. The incinerator will also breach my human rights affect my right to physical and psychological integrity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ricky Schembri MBE
"Increased pollution and even more toxins in the atmosphere carried over the short distance which added to the stench that blows over from the other industrial works in the vicinity would be even more unbearable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Knights Solicitors on behalf of S Wernick & Sons (Holdings) Limited - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn via letter. Please see attached. S Wernick & Sons (Holdings) Limited (“WERNI”) and Wernick Event Hire Limited (“WEHL”) oppose the application by Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (“Cory”) for development consent for the proposed Riverside Energy Park (“REP”). Cory seeks to acquire permanently, by compulsory acquisition, 4,678 m² of land owned freehold by WERNI: see pages 5-6 of Cory’s Book of Reference, Land Plan number 02/05 and Article 21 of the draft DCO. WEHL occupies the WERNI land. Cory’s Book of Reference fails even to identify WEHL as occupier. Cory also seeks to create and compulsorily acquire new rights over land, take temporary possession of land and extinguish or override existing rights over land. WERNI’s land is a significant commercial asset, and fundamental to WEHL’s commercial operation. It is of an asset class which is scarce in south east London/north west Kent and it is very difficult if not impossible to replace. Cory accepts, correctly, that it is necessary for the decision-maker in respect of the application to be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition in the DCO. However, that is not the limit of the necessity test. The decision-maker must also be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of WERNI’S land. The same principle applies with respect to any other of WERNI’s interests (and to WEHL’s interests) affected by the application. Planning Act 2008 section 122 is supplemented by the September 2013 Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (“the Guidance”). Cory accepts, correctly, that the decision-maker will take the Guidance into account. Contrary to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Guidance, Cory has not demonstrated that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition of WERNI’s land have been explored, its proposed interference with WERNI’s rights does not meet the tests set out and compulsory acquisition of WERNI’s interests is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The same goes for WEHL. Cory’s conduct has breached paragraphs 24-30 of the Guidance: see the 12 December 2018 letter from their solicitors (Knights). The letter draws attention to other of Cory’s failings. The paragraph 6.6.2 assertion in the Statement of Reasons that Cory, “has engaged in extensive consultation and negotiations with all persons with an interest in the relevant land in order to try to avoid the need for compulsory acquisition wherever possible” does not withstand scrutiny with respect to WERNI or WEHL. The same goes for the paragraph 8.3.2 assertion that detailed discussions are ongoing, “in order to ensure…concerns are taken into account and accommodated wherever possible.” On 6 April 2018, Cory produced a (flawed) valuation report for the WERNI land. It did not disclose the report’s existence until 10 October 2018 or provide it until 21 November 2018. The Statement of Reasons at Appendix B pages 55-56 manifestly misrepresents the status of negotiations between the parties. It fails even to identify WEHL as occupier."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Knights Solicitors on behalf of Wernick Event Hire Limited - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn via letter. Please see attached. S Wernick & Sons (Holdings) Limited (“WERNI”) and Wernick Event Hire Limited (“WEHL”) oppose the application by Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (“Cory”) for development consent for the proposed Riverside Energy Park (“REP”). Cory seeks to acquire permanently, by compulsory acquisition, 4,678 m² of land owned freehold by WERNI: see pages 5-6 of Cory’s Book of Reference, Land Plan number 02/05 and Article 21 of the draft DCO. WEHL occupies the WERNI land. Cory’s Book of Reference fails even to identify WEHL as occupier. Cory also seeks to create and compulsorily acquire new rights over land, take temporary possession of land and extinguish or override existing rights over land. WERNI’s land is a significant commercial asset, and fundamental to WEHL’s commercial operation. It is of an asset class which is scarce in south east London/north west Kent and it is very difficult if not impossible to replace. Cory accepts, correctly, that it is necessary for the decision-maker in respect of the application to be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition in the DCO. However, that is not the limit of the necessity test. The decision-maker must also be satisfied that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of WERNI’S land. The same principle applies with respect to any other of WERNI’s interests (and to WEHL’s interests) affected by the application. Planning Act 2008 section 122 is supplemented by the September 2013 Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land (“the Guidance”). Cory accepts, correctly, that the decision-maker will take the Guidance into account. Contrary to paragraphs 8 and 10 of the Guidance, Cory has not demonstrated that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition of WERNI’s land have been explored, its proposed interference with WERNI’s rights does not meet the tests set out and compulsory acquisition of WERNI’s interests is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The same goes for WEHL. Cory’s conduct has breached paragraphs 24-30 of the Guidance: see the 12 December 2018 letter from their solicitors (Knights). The letter draws attention to other of Cory’s failings. The paragraph 6.6.2 assertion in the Statement of Reasons that Cory, “has engaged in extensive consultation and negotiations with all persons with an interest in the relevant land in order to try to avoid the need for compulsory acquisition wherever possible” does not withstand scrutiny with respect to WERNI or WEHL. The same goes for the paragraph 8.3.2 assertion that detailed discussions are ongoing, “in order to ensure…concerns are taken into account and accommodated wherever possible.” On 6 April 2018, Cory produced a (flawed) valuation report for the WERNI land. It did not disclose the report’s existence until 10 October 2018 or provide it until 21 November 2018. The Statement of Reasons at Appendix B pages 55-56 manifestly misrepresents the status of negotiations between the parties. It fails even to identify WEHL as occupier."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Belvedere Community Forum
"Cory held public exhibitions during the summer of 2018 at the Belvedere Community Centre and has worked with the Belvedere Community Forum to identify the main environmental and planning considerations that will be addressed by the design of the Energy Park. They regularly keep us updated during our Public meetings and support the work of the Forum by attending the meetings and telephoning me if there are any new developments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Leahy
"Being a member of Friends of Crossness and thoroughly enjoy the wildlife of one of the last remaining section of marshland in London for a number of years, I object to the proposal of building yet another incinerator, along with the two proposed buildings on the Norman Road area, which would be yet further encroachment on this wonderful spot. Is this incinerator really necessary? I understand that the idea is for more recycling of waste and not purely burning it. The wildlife which is greatly attracted to this area would no doubt be affected by first the disturbance caused by the building of the incinerator and then by the impact the incinerator itself would have. I did visit the exhibitions run last year regarding the new development and although I appreciated that a lot of measures were to be taken to limit the affect on the area, I am still not convinced that any building would in no way affect this this lovely site and all the benefits it offers. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Essex Wildlife Trust
"Essex Wildlife Trust wishes to comment on this application in relation to potential impacts on biodiversity, designated and priority habitats, and protected species, including water voles, reptiles, wintering and breeding birds and invertebrates. We also wish to comment on proposed mitigation strategies to ensure that the proposed development can achieve a measurable net gain in biodiversity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gaynor Hillier
"I do not think you should extend this site as I fear the health effects it will have on myself and my family. During the summer months the smell from this site is horrendous and often we cannot open our windows because of it. Extending the site will only increase the problem for us residents in the surrounding area. I would like to make it clear that I strongly appose the expansion of this site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
"London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) has concerns over the effect of the Proposed Development on air quality, with particular regard to the air quality effect arising from the increase in river freight vessels, as a result of the Proposed Development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Rooks
"I am concerned about the implications for local and London-wide recycling rates of the building of another 'trash hungry' incinerator. It appears to me that recycling rates in my home Borough of Bexley have reduced in recent years and I understand that this is also the case in other boroughs that feed incinerators. I am concerned about the environmental impacts on local residents of the construction traffic and transport of the waste (much of it recyclable) for the foreseeable future. I am concerned about the impact on the conservation of the Thames Marshes and its wildlife by the construction of another major project in the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
NATS LTD
"Dear Sirs, NATS anticipates no impact from the proposal and has no comments to make on the DCO application. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bexley-Greenwich Environment Alliance
"Concerns re global warming. Inequitable siting of incinerators in the London area, ie this will be 4 within a 6km radius and three within 1km. Potential harm to adjacent nature reserve and also Rainham Marshes. Evidence suggests that the ratio of deaths are higher in London Boroughs where incinerators are sited or down-wind from same. Potential long term and widespread harm as Bexley Council plan to build c11,000 homes plus schools within 1km distance from the incinerator, tower blocks planned could be as high or higher than the chimney."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Hill
"I am the owner of a rental property in Erith. I welcome that the proposed project will use waste to generate electricity. I would like to understand the potential impact of the project on the air quality in Erith and any potential impact on property values in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rt Hon Sir David Evennett MP
"Dear Sirs I am writing as the Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath and Crayford to express my concerns for with the proposed Riverside Energy Park in Belvedere. I strongly opposed the existing Riverside Resource Recovery Facility on environmental grounds, as I was unconvinced by the need to incinerate waste so close to heavily populated areas given the effect on the environment and particularly on air quality. I am concerned that the additional facility may negatively impact the environment for my constituents, as well as the residents of Bexley Borough in general, and hope these issues will be taken into consideration. Yours faithfully Rt Hon Sir David Evennett MP Member of Parliament for Bexleyheath and Crayford"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ingrebourne Valley Limited
" The following statement does not object to the application for the proposed Riverside Energy Park Development Consent Order (Planning Inspectorate Reference Number: EN010093) (Document Reference:1.4), however Ingrebourne Valley Limited (IVL) do object to the use of their site as ‘Order Land’ to be acquired in relation to the proposed development to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights. The Land Plan sheet 13 and 14 of the proposed Riverside Energy Parks project intercepts the southern area of one of the sites that is owned by IVL known as Joyce Green Quarry. Joyce Green Quarry is located to the west of Joyce Green Lane and compromises of an area of circa 25.48 hectares. The site is situated within the Green Belt, the Thames Gateway and a Biodiversity Opportunity Area. The host planning permission was implemented by Hanson’s in 2002 but operations ceased in 2004, the site was partly worked and has been restored to a lake. Joyce Green Quarry has permission for the removal of the remaining reserve of circa 670,000 tonnes. The reserve from the site is to make a meaningful contribution to Kent’s Landbank and will help maintain a steady supply of mineral. All documents associated with Joyce Green Quarry are available on Kent County Councils website or upon request from IVL head office. The Ecological surveys undertaken at Joyce Green Quarry found that much of the protected species were found in the network of ditches on site. A total of 39 latrines, 7 burrows and 27 larders were found in the various ditches onsite, thus confirming the presence of water voles. Reptiles were found onsite within areas of the ‘unmanaged improved grassland’. During the reptile survey 12 juvenile common lizards were recorded, confirming the presence of a breeding reptile population on site. To protect these species throughout the development, the approved mitigation strategy consists of the construction of receptor sites for both water voles and reptiles. The receptor sites are in the south-east corner (reptile receptor area) and to the west (water vole receptor area) of Joyce Green. The reptile receptor area has been built and is currently in use, while the water vole receptor site is nearing completion. The receptor areas were designated by a professional ecologist and subsequently agreed with the Environment Agency and Natural England. The Riverside Energy Parks Land Plan sheet 13 and 14 shows that there is a clear extension of the Riverside Energy Parks boundary that intercepts the southern area of Joyce Green Quarry. This crossover area has been classified as ‘Order Land’. This order land intersects approximately 80% of the permitted reptile receptor area and the southern part of the water vole receptor site. These receptor sites have been approved by Kent County Council, Natural England and the Environment Agency and therefore must not be disturbed. To conclude, IVL are not objecting to Cory’s proposal in its entirety but are objecting to the use of the proposed ‘order land’ that impacts the south of Joyce Green Quarry. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Teresa Pearce
"I am the MP for Erith and Thamesmead and I am against this application for 3 main reasons. 1. It does nothing to encourage recycling or to reduce waste. In fact once councils buy into this scheme it is likely to supress recycling rates in the capital. The development is described as ‘Combined Heat and Power’-ready but has not demonstrated any demand for the heat produced, questions have been raised but no concrete answers have been given. I do not believe that it will contribute to the circular economy and does not support achieving high recycling rates, as set out in the Mayor’s London Environment Strategy (LES). 2. The Cory application is to build on the north-east boundary of Crossness Nature Reserve. This will have enormous impacts on the nature reserve which is a haven for rare birds , animals and insects not least from the 3-4 year construction phase. It will have a detrimental effect on this rare and valuable habitat which is one of the best in London and is home to a huge diversity of species . Once destroyed it will be lost forever and we have a duty to safeguard some of the species that are rare or nationally scarce. 3. I have concerns regarding the ability of local residents to look at the full plans. A number of residents have raised the lack of availability of the full details in local libraries. I understand that the plans should be made fully available but they are not to be found in the libraries. The only way is for residents to look online which seems to discriminate against those not digitally connected. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Newell Projects Ltd on behalf of ARRIVA London Ltd
"Arriva London operates Bus routes under contract to Transport for London (TfL) who are the transport authority within London. We are responsible for the day to day operation of Bus services and ensuring they run reliably within TfL performance criteria. Failure for Arriva London to meet performance criteria set by TfL will result in significant cost penalties . We have reviewed the TfL routes that we are responsible for operating in the Dartford area and which will be affected by these development proposals. These routes are routes 99, 229, 401, 428, 469 and B12 and total 67 buses, or just over 50°/o of Arriva's fleet located at Dartford. Arriva has major concerns about the development, in particular in respect of the highway and cable laying works between Belvedere and Dartford. Specifically, we believe the proposed works will cause severe traffic disruption along the Highway network and the surrounding area where the above routes operate . Without traffic modelling nor understanding the proposed phasing of temporary traffic management, it is difficult to fully comprehend or model the delays that will be caused . Arriva has therefore considered two separate scenarios, 10 minute and 20 minute delays for the above routes. In partnership with TfL, Arriva London will be seeking payment of any costs associated with the development disruption from the developer. For a 10 minute delay, Arriva London will need an additional 6 buses to maintain the current level of operating service at a cost of £1. 7M pa. Loss of ticket revenue for TfL associated with the fall in patronage due to the disruption has additionally been estimated at £0.34M pa. For a 20 minute delay, Arriva London will need 12 extra buses, resulting in an associated operating cost of £3.2M pa. Loss of revenue for TfL associated with the fall in patronage has additionally been estimated at £0.93M pa. Arriva can only comment on Arriva London routes but it is aware there will be Bus routes operated by other companies which will also be impacted by the proposed works. Arriva understands that TfL has also responded to the situation. Arriva London has urged the proposers to engage with both Arriva and with TfL in order to discuss the impact of the proposals, in order to minimise disruption to the Public Transport system. Thus far there has been no such response. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gill Coombs
"This Is Riverside Energy park should not be built in an area of high population. It is a known fact that plant produces harmful pollutants emitted into the air which will cause people's health problems and the environment will be affected the dust it produces will not only be bad for lungs farmland around will become contaminated. These plants should be built by the sea prefably in places like Scotland. Dioxin is a highly toxic chemical compound which may cause cancer and neurological damage and disrupt reproductive systems, thyroid systems etc. Why are these plants even being considered when they produce toxic waste it is a disgrace I represent the communities around the area. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Margaret J White
"1. Necessity - There are already 3 incinerators within 5 Km of Belvedere. There are 32 London Boroughs at least 24 do not have a single incinerator. Why should this local area be more blighted than any other one. (This is not our own local waste but commercial restaurant waste from the central London area.) 2. Safety- in the case of a fire or explosion, with what could in the future be 3 incinerators in close proximity, with large scale warehousing and storage operations adjacent to the site such as Asda and Iron Mountain data storage, there is a serious risk. The small local fire station would not be adequate in any way to deal with this. 3. Harm to public Health - Any burning releases chemicals into the air. It does not seem reasonable to add to the existing output of hazardous substances at the same location. Slade Green is a recognised area of Deprivation, (surprising in an affluent suburb). There are higher numbers of young and older people, than is typical for the Bexley borough. There are higher numbers with life limiting illness, more carers and more people claiming Disability allowances. Those living with COPD are particularly at risk. 4. Traffic Pollution - Although a large proportion of the new commercial waste is proposed to enter the site by river there will still be extra road movements. This is in an already congested area. The main A 206 dual carriageway towards the M25 Dartford tunnel, has been found to have higher than EU limits for 'NO 2'. The tunnel approach can have 300 incidents of over 30 mins. delay in a year Digging up most of the road side to run power cables to the substation would cause inordinate delay to a very crowded road and much extra traffic fumes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heidi Barnes
"The construction process alone will disrupt the marshes & drive away many species . Afterwards there will be a continuous source of noise , light pollution of dark marshes & air pollution by vehicles , if not the waste operations . And it will probably smell . All of which will reduce the attractiveness of the area for leisure . At present it is enjoyable to walk & cycle in the marshes for fitness & to watch nature . The Government is committed to getting people out & exercising ; this project will spoil the appeal of one of the local sites for doing precisely that , throughout the construction process & probably during its operation . Who wants to do outdoor exercise beside a noisy steaming stinking factory complex which lights up the sky at night , hiding the stars ? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Be First on behalf of London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
"I am responding on behalf of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (LBBD) in relation to your neighbouring authority consultation in respect of the above proposed development. I confirm that LBBD has no objections to the proposed development having considered its potential impact on its residents in respect of the following matters: Visual Impact The proposed building would be significantly larger and taller in comparison with the existing facility to be retained. It would be clearly visible in views from Barking Riverside and Dagenham Dock on the other side of the Thames. It is considered that an industrial building fronting the River Thames is appropriate to its character, and that the development would not cause harm to the landscape or visual amenity. Air Quality The Council’s Environmental Health Officer was consulted on the application. He concludes that the Borough air quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed waste to energy facility will be negligible; this includes residents of the yet to be constructed Beam Park development (Receptor R15) who will be the most exposed LBBD residents to emissions from the facility. Consequently, there are no objections on this ground. ? Noise The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has undertaken an indicative noise calculation using the data presented in the application. He is satisfied that noise emissions from the proposed energy park will not cause disturbance to the closest, and by implication, most exposed future LBBD residents who will be living at the eastern end of the Barking Riverside development. Consequently, there are no objections in relation to this matter. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cory Environmental Limited
"Relevant Representation to the Planning Inspectorate on Riverside Energy Park EN010093 Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (trading as Cory Riverside Energy) (company number 05360864) (CEHL) has identified Cory Environmental Limited (CEL) (company number 49722) as an organisation with an interest in land to which the proposed Riverside Energy Park (REP) Development Consent Order application relates. CEL received notification that the Development Consent Order (DCO) relating to REP was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination on 14 December 2019. CEL requests to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an Interested Party to take part in the examination of the REP Development Consent Order application by making the following relevant representations: Application in Principle CEL is a member of the Cory Riverside Energy Group and an indirect subsidiary of CEHL. REP will support the growth of the Cory Riverside Energy Group and will help to address London’s waste treatment and energy needs in the context of constrained waste treatment capacity and increasing desire for renewable energy. REP would have no detrimental impact on any CEL operations. CEL therefore has no objection to the application for a Development Consent Order. Compulsory Acquisition CEL owns several areas of land that would be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition of interests in and rights over land, the temporary use of land and the overriding of easements and other rights. The REP Book of Reference (Examination Library Reference APP-018) identifies the following plots of land in CEL ownership: 02/04, 02/20, 02/22. CEL has no objection to the compulsory acquisition powers sought in the application for Development Consent Order in respect of CEL's interests. CEL intends to sell a portion of its land to CEHL/ Riverside Energy Park Limited (a 100% owned subsidiary of CEHL) in support of the REP development and supports the application in its entirety. Kind regards, Julian Walker "
Members of the Public/Businesses
SPRING LAW on behalf of CREEK SIDE DEVELOPMENTS (KENT) LIMITED (CREEK SIDE DEVELOPMENTS (KENT) LIMITED)
"Dear Sirs We act for Creek Side Developments (Kent) Limited (“Creek”). Creek's site has planning permission for Class B1 development under reference 12/01930/FUL from the London Borough of Bexley. We and Creek have both been served with correspondence as a statutory consultee for the purposes of section 42 of the Planning Act 2008 and regulation 13 of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and served with a notice pursuant to section 48 of the Planning Act 2008. Creek has also been served with a notice pursuant to section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 of acceptance of the application by Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (“Cory”) for the proposed development of Riverside Energy Park (“Proposed Development”). We have previously been in direct correspondence and enquiries with various representatives and persons acting for Cory in connection with the Proposed Development. Creek is concerned to obtain clear confirmation about how the Proposed Development would affect the land our client is buying in any way and the services and access to it and whether compulsory acquisition and/or development rights would apply. In response to our enquiries, Ardent (acting for Cory) have said that Creek’s site is currently intended to be used temporarily which is considered to be compulsory acquisition and these powers will be sought as part of the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) application. Creek’s site appears to be designated as Plot Number 02/52 on the land plans for possible temporary use as referred to in Schedule 9 of the draft DCO. [Redacted] (in house lawyer for Cory) and [Redacted] (Director of Cory) have previously stated that negotiations would be progressed for a lease of Creek’s site to Cory for temporary use in connection with the Proposed Development. However, although it appears that Cory is willing to seek agreement with Creek, further negotiations regarding such lease for temporary use remain to be progressed by Cory and this is not yet agreed and confirmed. Therefore, pending resolution of such issues to the satisfaction of Creek and its lender, we are instructed to hereby raise Creek’s objection to the Proposed Development due to its potential to have a fundamentally adverse and detrimental effect on Creek’s site and its value and Creek’s use, possession, development and ownership of it. Nevertheless, as stated, it appears that Cory is willing to seek agreement with Creek to allow temporary use by way of a lease of Creek’s site in connection with the Proposed Development and Creek is also keen to seek to progress such negotiations further with Cory. Creek awaits hearing further from Cory on this lease. Spring Law "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francesca Sanna
"I live in Belvedere and frequently visit the area by the Cory riverside incinerator for wildlife observation and general wellbeing. Whilst at first glance the area might appear to be just a derelict wasteland, it is in fact a wonderful open space of great ecological importance that provides ideal habitat for many species of flora and fauna, many of which are currently endangered. I object to the construction of a second waste incinerator for the following main reasons: 1) its devastating impact on the local ecology during and after construction through loss of habitat for wildlife as well as loss of open spaces for the community to enjoy. Increased traffic, both on the river and the local roads leading to increased levels of air pollution, noise and disruption to the lives of the local community. Increased light pollution and disturbance to wildlife. 2) Burning waste is not the answer to our environmental problems and, indeed, it undermines recycling efforts. The aim should be to recycle more and reduce non-recyclables to zero. However, recycling in west London has greatly reduced since the existing Cory riverside facility became operational. In Bexley we currently recycle 53% of our waste, but recycling takes effort and people will always choose the easy option, especially when mislead into believing that burning waste is actually good for the environment. I am also very concerned about the “cleanliness” of the smoke that constantly spews out of the incinerator for all manner of toxic materials could be burned when they shouldn’t and toxic micro particles could be released into the air with detrimental effects on its quality and the health of those who breath it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tozers LLP on behalf of Landsul Limited
"Proposed Riverside Energy Park (EN010093) Relevant Representation submitted on behalf of Landsul Limited OBJECTION We act for Landsul Limited (“Landsul”) and Munster Joinery (U.K.) Limited (“Munster Joinery”) and this is their response to the notification under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 of the application by Cory Riverside Energy (“Cory”) for an order (the “Order”) granting Development Consent for the Riverside Energy Park (the “Project”). Landsul is the owner, developer and manager of land at Norman Road Belvedere which it is in the course of developing for industrial and warehousing purposes. Part of the land is occupied by Munster Joinery. Landsul object to the draft Order. A separate objection is submitted on behalf of Munster Joinery. LANDSUL’S LAND Landsul is the freehold owner of land registered under title number SGL757650 (“the Land”) which (if the Draft Order is made) would be subject to compulsory purchase and temporary use powers. The land is known as the Former Electricity Generating Station Norman Road Belvedere Kent. The Land has planning permission (ref: 13/00918/FULM) for the erection of industrial units for mixed use within Class B1 (business), Class B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage/distribution), with associated ancillary works. Full planning permission has been obtained to enable this development to be completed through the approval of details under the planning permission. Landsul has recently invested heavily in developing the first phase of its development at Norman Road, which has been partially developed and the unit occupied by Munster Joinery, an associated company of Landsul. It had been Landsul’s intention to complete the implementation of this planning permission in the very near future, by the construction of further units. THE DRAFT ORDER The land in which Landsul is identified as having an interest is identified in the Book of Reference and in the Plans as Plots 2/29 2/30 2/52 2/53 2/54 and 2/55 and Plots 3/05 3/06 3/07 3/09 and 3/10. Landsul is identified as the freehold owner of Plots 2/53 and 3/07 with rights over, an interest in or a right to compensation in respect of the remaining Plots. Cory has confirmed within the Draft Order that part of the Land (Plot 3/07) is excluded from CPO and temporary use powers. The proposed works (Work No. 8) are identified as works to construct temporary construction compound including— (a) hard standing; (b) vehicle parking; (c) accommodation block(s); (d) new or alteration to accesses; and (e) construction fabrication areas. The powers comprised in the draft Order which relate to temporary acquisition of land are substantial and very broadly drafted and would detrimentally affect the ability of Landsul and Munster Joinery to operate from the Land and carry out their proposals. The draft Order also includes power to temporarily close Norman Road, which is the only access to the Land. On the current drafting of the draft Order Landsul can only prudently proceed on the basis that these wide powers will be exercised without limitation. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT Whilst the unit which Munster Joinery occupy is sited on Plot 3/07 and is excluded from CPO and temporary use powers, they would be seriously adversely impacted by the Project. Currently they are using all of the concrete yard which is laid along the front half of the Land including part of Plot 2/53 which is subject to temporary use powers. The loss of this area of yard will seriously impact on their operations and will make it difficult and more dangerous for vehicles to manoeuvre within the reduced space. In fact the reduced yard will make it impossible for articulated vehicles to manoeuvre. At the moment most of the available parking on the Land is being used, even though it is only partly developed. A new showroom has been constructed on the Land costing £700,000 which will open shortly. Car parking is also needed for customers to the showroom and a failure to provide adequate parking will significantly reduce sales. The Project will result in the cycle stand having to be relocated which will result in the loss of more car/lorry parking spaces. Landsul are also concerned regarding the effect on their planning permission which stipulates that they must provide a minimum number of car parking and articulated lorry parking bays which can only be achieved with all of the Land. Landsul had intended to expand its operations year on year with the consequent need for more car parking spaces eg for new workers vehicles. The building of another new unit on that part of the Land which is subject to CPO and temporary use powers was to facilitate this expansion. The exercise of the powers under the Order would prevent Landsul from completing their development sterilising their land for an indeterminate period. It may potentially result in the need for a new planning permission. The surface water drainage system on the Land utilises a surface water pond which would be within the area designated to be taken over. The temporary use of this land by Cory would have a serious impact in terms of flooding and surface water drainage on the remainder of the Land. The only access to the Land is from Norman Road. Closure of Norman Road for any period would prevent access to the Land. In summary Landsul’s concerns include the following: • the ability of Munster Joinery and the Land generally to continue operating including provision of parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas and compliance with planning • the fact that the reduced yard will make it impossible for articulated lorries to manoeuvre • the loss of sales • site specific impacts e.g. noise, dust, vibration and working hours • the need for permanent and continuous rights of access and services to the Land throughout • retention of a satisfactory surface water drainage system on the Land with free access to maintain this system • impact on the implementation and completion of the development under Landsul’s planning permission (reference 13/00918/FULM) • the potential sterilisation of the Land and the lost development opportunity (with the consequent impacts eg on jobs). • the need for appropriate reinstatement and hand over of the Land following temporary use (including reinstatement of, for example, surface water drainage, hardstanding and parking areas). OBJECTION 1. Defect in the draft Order The draft Order (Schedule 9) does not specify the purpose for which temporary possession may be taken of Plot 02/53. 2. Failure to comply with Policy Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states that any promoter is required: "To consider the potential effects, including benefits, of a proposal for a project, the IPC will find it helpful if the applicant sets out information on the likely significant social and economic effects of the development, and shows how any likely significant negative effects would be avoided or mitigated. This information could include matters such as employment, equality, community cohesion and well-being." (Para 4.2.2, emphasis added) The draft Order powers are not in accordance with the NPS so far as the Land is concerned. No assessment has been made of the significant impact that the Project will have on Landsul’s land and proposals it has for development and the negative impact on the businesses of Landsul, Munster Joinery and employment. Furthermore, the Environmental Statement fails to address the impact of the project on Landsul’s land and Landsul’s and Munster Joinery’s businesses. The Environmental Statement fails to properly assess alternatives. 3. Failure to demonstrate the need or compelling case for the proposed powers. It is necessary for Cory to demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition in the Order. No case has been made by Cory. In fact, there is no evidence that all or any of the land owned by Landsul and comprised in the Book of Reference/Land Plans is required for the development to which the proposed draft Order relates, or is required to facilitate, or is incidental to, that development. There is no evidence that all such powers are required for all of the land, all of the time and for the periods of time as sought in the proposed draft Order. The Statement of Reasons contains bald assertions that the land is required and there is no evidence to substantiate these assertions. Landsul’s own consultants are of the view that Landsul’s land is not necessary and that Cory has sufficient land, excluding Landsul’s land, to carry out the Project. This should include land within the current extent of the scheme but also including other land owned in the vicinity. Plots 2/44 and 2/49 owned by Riverside Resource Recovery Limited are not identified for any works which would preclude their use as a temporary construction compound. There has been no detailed assessment of the ability to use this land for the purposes of a construction compound. Consequently there are significant areas of land which would be under the ownership or control of Cory and its related companies and Landsul’s consultants consider that there is more than sufficient land to provide adequate construction compound areas without the need for Landsul’s land. The Environmental Statement is particularly deficient in its assessment of alternatives. The alternatives are not identified and it does not appear that Plots 2/44 and2/49 were considered, and if they were, why they were not considered suitable either temporarily or permanently. Furthermore, no consideration appears to have been given to the fact that the Land has the benefit of planning permission which is in the course of being implemented (a reason for discounting other sites). Contrary to guidance, all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition (including modifications to the scheme) have not been explored in this case. Cory has not demonstrated that it is necessary and proportionate to interfere with Landsul’s rights. It has not demonstrated that it cannot accommodate the necessary worksites within land it would own or control or which would be owned by Riverside Resource Recovery Limited. In any event there is no evidence that the Land is needed for the whole of the construction process from start to finish including commissioning. It is inevitable that the need for temporary construction compounds will diminish greatly (even if any need remains) once the main construction works have been carried out. It should not be necessary to retain any land for these purposes once construction has been completed. 4. Failure to consult Compulsory purchase powers should only be used as a last resort. It is agreed that preliminary discussions have been held with Cory. However, since the meeting with Cory on 9 September 2018, at which Cory agreed to forward their proposals, nothing was heard from Cory until 18 January 2019, a gap of some 4 months. 5. Discussions with Cory Landsul’s position is that there is no evidence that any of the land owned by Landsul is required for or to facilitate the Project and that Cory has not demonstrated that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the need for CPO powers. No or insufficient consideration has been given to the use of other land owned by or under the control of Cory and its associated companies. Landsul has been and is still willing to discuss a possible agreement with Cory to meet the serious concerns it has over the impact of the Project (eg as set out under “Impact of the Project” above). However since Landsul’s meeting with Cory on 9 September nothing further was heard from Cory until 18 January. Landsul is still willing to work with Cory to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However if agreement is not reached Landsul wishes to maintain its objection. It considers that there are significant areas of land which would be under the ownership or control of Cory and its related companies and that there is more than sufficient land to provide adequate construction compound areas without the need for Landsul’s land. Tozers LLP Solicitors "
Members of the Public/Businesses
London Borough of Havering
"1. London Borough of Havering notes that the Planning Inspectorate has formally accepted the Development Consent Order application by Cory Riverside Energy for its proposal at Belvedere (Planning Inspectorate reference : EN010093). 2.The Council has reviewed the Environmental Statement and Technical Appendices prepared to support this application. 3.The Council in principle supports the air quality assessment methodology set out on pages 39-56 (inclusive) in the Environmental Statement : Volume 06 Document Reference 6.1 Chapter 7 Section 7.5 (DCO Application library reference : APP044). 4. The Council seeks, to ensure that the modelling approach underpinning the air quality assessment can be verified as fit for purpose. Action required : The developer must provide information on the model’s performance that includes measures such as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) calculations in the Environmental Statement : Technical Appendices : Appendix C.1 Traffic Modelling (DCO Application library reference : APP068). 5.The Council notes that according to the assessment methodology, internationally and nationally designated sites were considered up to 15km from the Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) stack, so as to assess the impacts of the proposed development on terrestrial biodiversity receptors. The Council notes that Hornchurch Cutting in Havering is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) that was identified within the 15km distance (Paragraph 7.7.16 and Table 7.30). 6.The Council is concerned that the Hornchurch Cutting site is not included in Section C.2.3 of Environmental Statement : Technical Appendices : Appendix C.2 Stack Modelling where the impacts of emissions from the ERF on terrestrial biodiversity receptors are assessed (DCO Application library reference : APP069). Action required : Further explanation and clarification of the impacts of the proposal on the Hornchurch Cutting site should be provided and inclusion of the Hornchurch Cutting site within the DCO assessment. 7.The Council notes that the assessment of ERF emissions impacts on terrestrial biodiversity receptors has shown that the long-term process contributions (PCs) at the Inner Thames Marshes and Rainham Marshes in Havering are above the long-term environmental standards for NOx, ammonia (NH3) and total acid deposition. The NOx and NH3 long-term standards are also exceeded at the nearby Ingrebourne Marshes in Havering. The Council does not agree with the assessments of impacts set out in paragraph 7.9.43 of the air quality report. Action required :The Council seeks that the Developer address the identified impacts, particularly those considered as potentially significant impacts, at each of these Havering sites. The Council considers the developer should undertake : • Further assessment through detailed modelling of the impacts on these sites of each of the pollutants mentioned to demonstrate robustly that the impacts are not significant. • Mitigation measures through appropriate abatement techniques to reduce the NOx, NH3, nitrogen and sulphur emissions which lead to acid deposition. The developer should provide robust assessment to demonstrate that the mitigation measures will ensure that the impacts are not significant. 8. The Council reserves the right to comment on further aspects of this proposal, being the Cory Riverside Energy proposal at Belvedere, London Borough of Bexley – Planning Inspectorate reference : EN010093 at the forthcoming Examination. Martyn Thomas London Borough of Havering February 11 2019 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tozers LLP on behalf of Munster Joinery (U.K.) Limited (Munster Joinery (U.K.) Limited)
"Proposed Riverside Energy Park (EN010093) Relevant Representation submitted on behalf of Munster Joinery (U.K.) Limited OBJECTION We act for Munster Joinery (U.K.) Limited (“Munster Joinery”) and we also act for Landsul Limited (“Landsul”) and this is their response to the notification under Section 56 of the Planning Act 2008 of the application by Cory Riverside Energy (“Cory”) for an order (the “Order”) granting Development Consent for the Riverside Energy Park (the “Project”). Landsul is the owner, developer and manager of land at Norman Road Belvedere which it is in the course of developing for industrial and warehousing purposes. Part of the land is occupied by Munster Joinery. Munster Joinery (U.K.) Limited object to the draft Order. A separate objection is submitted on behalf of Landsul. LANDSUL’S AND MUNSTER JOINERY’S LAND Landsul is the freehold owner of land registered under title number SGL757650 (“the Land”) which (if the Draft Order is made) would be subject to compulsory purchase and temporary use powers. The land is known as the Former Electricity Generating Station Norman Road Belvedere Kent. The Land has planning permission (ref: 13/00918/FULM) for the erection of industrial units for mixed use within Class B1 (business), Class B2 (general industrial) and B8 (storage/distribution), with associated ancillary works. Full planning permission has been obtained to enable this development to be completed through the approval of details under the planning permission. Landsul has recently invested heavily in developing the first phase of its development at Norman Road, which has been partially developed and the unit occupied by Munster Joinery, an associated company of Landsul. It had been Landsul’s intention to complete the implementation of this planning permission in the very near future, by the construction of further units. THE DRAFT ORDER The land in which Landsul is identified as having an interest is identified in the Book of Reference and in the Plans as Plots 2/29 2/30 2/52 2/53 2/54 and 2/55 and Plots 3/05 3/06 3/07 3/09 and 3/10. Landsul is identified as the freehold owner of Plots 2/53 and 3/07 with rights over, an interest in or a right to compensation in respect of the remaining Plots. Munster Joinery is identified as the occupier of Plots 2/53 and 3/07 with rights over, an interest in or a right to compensation in respect of Plots 2/29, 2/30 and 3/10. Cory has confirmed within the Draft Order that part of the Land (Plot 3/07) is excluded from CPO and temporary use powers. The proposed works (Work No. 8) are identified as works to construct temporary construction compound including— (a) hard standing; (b) vehicle parking; (c) accommodation block(s); (d) new or alteration to accesses; and (e) construction fabrication areas. The powers comprised in the draft Order which relate to temporary acquisition of land are substantial and very broadly drafted and would detrimentally affect the ability of Landsul and Munster Joinery to operate from the Land and carry out their proposals. The draft Order also includes power to temporarily close Norman Road, which is the only access to the Land. On the current drafting of the draft Order Munster Joinery can only prudently proceed on the basis that these wide powers will be exercised without limitation. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT Whilst the unit which Munster Joinery occupy is sited on Plot 3/07 and is excluded from CPO and temporary use powers, they would be seriously adversely impacted by the Project. Currently they are using all of the concrete yard which is laid along the front half of the Land including part of Plot 2/53 which is subject to temporary use powers. The loss of this area of yard will seriously impact on their operations and will make it difficult and more dangerous for vehicles to manoeuvre within the reduced space. In fact the reduced yard will make it impossible for articulated vehicles to manoeuvre. At the moment most of the available parking on the Land is being used, even though it is only partly developed. A new showroom has been constructed on the Land costing £700,000 which will open shortly. Car parking is also needed for customers to the showroom and a failure to provide adequate parking will significantly reduce sales. The Project will result in the cycle stand having to be relocated which will result in the loss of more car/lorry parking spaces. Landsul and Munster Joinery are also concerned regarding the effect on their planning permission which stipulates that they must provide a minimum number of car parking and articulated lorry parking bays which can only be achieved with all of the Land. Landsul had intended to expand its operations year on year with the consequent need for more car parking spaces eg for new workers vehicles. The building of another new unit on that part of the Land which is subject to CPO and temporary use powers was to facilitate this expansion. The exercise of the powers under the Order would prevent Landsul from completing their development sterilising their land for an indeterminate period. It may potentially result in the need for a new planning permission. The surface water drainage system on the Land utilises a surface water pond which would be within the area designated to be taken over. The temporary use of this land by Cory would have a serious impact in terms of flooding and surface water drainage on the remainder of the Land. The only access to the Land is from Norman Road. Closure of Norman Road for any period would prevent access to the Land. In summary Landsul’s and Munster Joinery’s concerns include the following: • the ability of Munster Joinery and the Land generally to continue operating including provision of parking and vehicle manoeuvring areas and compliance with planning • the fact that the reduced yard will make it impossible for articulated lorries to manoeuvre • the loss of sales • site specific impacts e.g. noise, dust, vibration and working hours • the need for permanent and continuous rights of access and services to the Land throughout • retention of a satisfactory surface water drainage system on the Land with free access to maintain this system • impact on the implementation and completion of the development under Landsul’s planning permission (reference 13/00918/FULM) • the potential sterilisation of the Land and the lost development opportunity (with the consequent impacts eg on jobs). • the need for appropriate reinstatement and hand over of the Land following temporary use (including reinstatement of, for example, surface water drainage, hardstanding and parking areas). OBJECTION 1. Defect in the draft Order The draft Order (Schedule 9) does not specify the purpose for which temporary possession may be taken of Plot 02/53. 2. Failure to comply with Policy Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) states that any promoter is required: “To consider the potential effects, including benefits, of a proposal for a project, the IPC will find it helpful if the applicant sets out information on the likely significant social and economic effects of the development, and shows how any likely significant negative effects would be avoided or mitigated. This information could include matters such as employment, equality, community cohesion and well-being.” (Para 4.2.2, emphasis added) The draft Order powers are not in accordance with the NPS so far as the Land is concerned. No assessment has been made of the significant impact that the Project will have on Landsul’s land and proposals it has for development and the negative impact on the businesses of Landsul, Munster Joinery and employment. Furthermore, the Environmental Statement fails to address the impact of the project on Landsul’s land and Landsul’s and Munster Joinery’s businesses. The Environmental Statement fails to properly assess alternatives. 3. Failure to demonstrate the need or compelling case for the proposed powers. It is necessary for Cory to demonstrate that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the inclusion of powers of compulsory acquisition in the Order. No case has been made by Cory. In fact, there is no evidence that all or any of the land owned by Landsul and comprised in the Book of Reference/Land Plans is required for the development to which the proposed draft Order relates, or is required to facilitate, or is incidental to, that development. There is no evidence that all such powers are required for all of the land, all of the time and for the periods of time as sought in the proposed draft Order. The Statement of Reasons contains bald assertions that the land is required and there is no evidence to substantiate these assertions. Munster Joinery’s own consultants are of the view that Landsul’s land is not necessary and that Cory has sufficient land, excluding Landsul’s land to carry out the Project. This should include land within the current extent of the scheme but also including other land owned in the vicinity. Plots 2/44 and 2/49 owned by Riverside Resource Recovery Limited are not identified for any works which would preclude their use as a temporary construction compound. There has been no detailed assessment of the ability to use this land for the purposes of a construction compound. Consequently there are significant areas of land which would be under the ownership or control of Cory and its related companies and Landsul’s consultants consider that there is more than sufficient land to provide adequate construction compound areas without the need for Landsul’s land. The Environmental Statement is particularly deficient in its assessment of alternatives. The alternatives are not identified and it does not appear that Plots 2/44 and2/49 were considered, and if they were, why they were not considered suitable either temporarily or permanently. Furthermore, no consideration appears to have been given to the fact that the Land has the benefit of planning permission which is in the course of being implemented (a reason for discounting other sites). Contrary to guidance, all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition (including modifications to the scheme) have not been explored in this case. Cory has not demonstrated that it is necessary and proportionate to interfere with Munster Joinery’s rights. It has not demonstrated that it cannot accommodate the necessary worksites within land it would own or control or which would be owned by Riverside Resource Recovery Limited. In any event there is no evidence that the Land is needed for the whole of the construction process from start to finish including commissioning. It is inevitable that the need for temporary construction compounds will diminish greatly (even if any need remains) once the main construction works have been carried out. It should not be necessary to retain any land for these purposes once construction has been completed. 4. Failure to consult Compulsory purchase powers should only be used as a last resort. It is agreed that preliminary discussions have been held with Cory. However, since the meeting with Cory on 9 September 2018, at which Cory agreed to forward their proposals, nothing was heard from Cory until 18 January 2019, a gap of some 4 months. 5. Discussions with Cory Munster Joinery’s position is that there is no evidence that any of the land owned by Landsul is required for or to facilitate the Project and that Cory has not demonstrated that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the need for CPO powers. No or insufficient consideration has been given to the use of other land owned by or under the control of Cory and its associated companies. Munster Joinery has been and is still willing to discuss a possible agreement with Cory to meet the serious concerns it has over the impact of the Project (eg as set out under “Impact of the Project” above). However since the meeting with Cory on 9 September nothing further was heard from Cory until 18 January. Munster Joinery is still willing to work with Cory to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However if agreement is not reached Munster Joinery wishes to maintain its objection. It considers that there are significant areas of land which would be under the ownership or control of Cory and its related companies and that there is more than sufficient land to provide adequate construction compound areas without the need for Landsul’s land. Tozers LLP Solicitors "
Members of the Public/Businesses
JMW Planning Solutions Ltd on behalf of Prologis UK Ltd
"Our representation relates to the Electrical Connection element of the proposal, in particular the route options suggested at/adjacent to The Bridge (Bob Dunn Way, Dartford) marked as 2B on the 'Application Boundary and Assessment Areas' plan [Figure 2 in the NTS] and as illustrated on Sheets 14, 15 and 16 of the Land Plans & PROW Plans. We are concerned in relation to the likely disruption that will be caused at The Bridge as a result of the proposed works. In our opinion, the preferred option would be to route the Electrical Connection along Bob Dunn Way and Rennie Drive, rather than use the proposed UTC sports field and the existing Fastrack road."
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that: 1. PHE is satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. 2. There are public health benefits in reducing public exposures to non-threshold pollutants (such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide) below air quality standards: as such, we recommend consideration of mitigation measures that reduce public exposures to pollutant levels as low as reasonably practicable, and that the applicant's proposed air quality management plan recognises this important principle. 3. Emissions from the proposed development will be controlled via the Environmental Permitting regime, under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The permitting regime is administered by the Environment Agency (EA), separately from Nationally Significant Infrastructure Planning and PHE will be formally consulted by the EA as part of the permitting process. We will provide detailed comments at that stage. 4. Potential impacts arising from historic ground contamination have been considered in the draft development consent order and there is a requirement that a scheme to assess and manage these impacts, be agreed with the relevant local authority in consultation with the Environment Agency, as the relevant regulatory authorities with regards to contaminated land. 5. The outline Code of Construction Practice (CoCP) (document reference 7.5), includes provisions for the management, assessment and control of dust, pollution incidents, land contamination, plant and vehicle movements, impacts on water resources and waste management. The document proposes full consultation / agreement with the appropriate regulatory bodies and consequently PHE is of the opinion that these matters can be satisfactorily addressed and wishes to make no additional comments. We have no additional comments to make at this stage and can confirm that we have chosen NOT to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Riverside Resource Recovery Limited
"Relevant Representation to the Planning Inspectorate on Riverside Energy Park EN010093 Cory Environmental Holdings Limited (trading as Cory Riverside Energy) (company number 05360864) (CEHL) has identified Riverside Resource Recovery Limited (RRRL) (company number 3723386) as an organisation with an interest in land to which the proposed Riverside Energy Park (REP) Development Consent Order application relates. RRRL received notification that the Development Consent Order relating to REP was accepted by the Planning Inspectorate for examination on 14 December 2019. RRRL requests to register with the Planning Inspectorate as an Interested Party to take part in the examination of the REP Development Consent Order application by making the following relevant representations: Application in Principle RRRL is a member of the Cory Riverside Energy Group and indirect subsidiary of CEHL. As outlined in the REP application, RRRL owns and operates an existing EfW facility on land adjacent to the site proposed for the REP development. While both facilities intend to share the use of existing infrastructure through commercial arrangements, including the jetty and access roads, RRRL considers the REP development would complement and support future operations and help to address London’s waste treatment and energy needs, in the context of constrained waste treatment capacity and increasing desire for renewable energy. RRRL therefore actively supports the REP application in its entirety. RRRL supports the inclusion of the protective provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 10 to the draft DCO (Examination Library Reference APP-014) that have been included for RRRL’s benefit. Compulsory Acquisition RRRL owns several areas of land that would be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition of interests in and rights over land, the temporary use of land and the overriding of easements and other rights. The REP Book of Reference (Examination Library Reference APP-018) identifies the following plots of land in RRRL ownership: 02/01, 02/02, 02/03, 02/07, 02/08, 02/09, 02/10, 02/11, 02/12, 02/13, 02/14, 02/15, 02/16, 02/17, 02/18, 02/19, 02/20, 02/21, 02/23, 02/24, 02/25, 02/26, 02/27, 02/28, 02/29, 02/30, 02/31, 02/32, 02/34, 02/35, 02/36s, 02/37s, 02/43, 02/44, 02/47, 02/48, 02/49, 02/51, 02/56, 03/10. RRRL has no objection to the compulsory acquisition powers sought in the application for Development Consent Order in respect of RRRL's interests. RRRL intends to sell a portion of its land to CEHL or Riverside Energy Park Limited (a 100% owned subsidiary of CEHL) in support of the REP development. RRRL supports the Application in its entirety. Kind regards, Julian Walker "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Sims
"I am a local resident currently living in West Thamesmead, and a regular visitor to the Crossness Nature Reserve. I am against the proposed build of an additional waste incinerator for three principal reasons. Initially I would question the need for an additional incinerator. Incineration, no matter how clean, undermines the national recycling targets and the many current schemes successfully run by council boroughs. In fact local council Bexley is highly ranked in this regard, recycling a higher percentage of waste than other London boroughs. Recent changes in perception and practice amongst the public also indicate a move against plastics and other types of packaging appropriate to incineration. Re-usable coffee mugs are just one example of this. It’s worth noting too that EU Directive 2008/98/EC (Waste Framework Directive) prioritises prevention, re-use and recycling over energy recovery. Secondly I would be concerned about the impact of both the development and running of a plant on such a scale. This build is bound to generate considerable local disruption, worsen local traffic and add to pollution. What’s more, the build is very close to the boundary with the reserve, and can’t but have some impact on local habitats. This area is currently a quiet and frequently neglected corner of the capital, one of the last remaining areas of grazing marsh South of the river and hence very attractive to visiting birds and other wildlife. Finally I note the impact on the reserve itself. West elevation drawings suggest a significant loss of morning light for the area, particularly as the build is so close to the boundary. As suggested above, potential impacts as a result of accidental spill, pollution and noise on habitat could also be catastrophic. Crossness Nature Reserve, while not officially a designated asset of community value, certainly has an important value for local schools, visitors, and bird-watching and wildlife clubs. With British wildlife under pressure, a reserve like Crossness fulfils a vital role. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Bradshaw
"I live just a few miles away in Greenwich and have been visiting the area by the Cory site for several years for recreation (walking) and wildlife observation. This area looks unremarkable but is part of a large mosaic of first class wildlife habitat which is one of the best in Greater London with a huge diversity of species, especially birds and invertebrates. I wish to register objection to this development on two major grounds. Firstly it will have a detrimental impact on sensitive habitat, some of which will be under the building's footprint, more which will be destroyed during construction process and yet more nearby areas in terms of traffic, pollution, light levels, noise. Secondly, the case for another incinerator is not justified. The aim should be reduction and recycling of waste not just burning it which Bexley borough already has a very good record on and underlines the unecessary need for a further incinerator."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Rose
"According to figures from London Assembly member [Redacted] in questions to the Mayor in December 2017, 70-80 per cent of London’s household waste is recyclable, yet more than 50 per cent of London’s waste is sent to incinerators. Recycling rates among the Western Riverside Waste Authority boroughs have fallen since their contract with the Belvedere EfW incinerator in 2012. Incineration is depressing London recycling rates. Cory conflates incineration with 'recycling' and 'renewable' energy. Incinerating waste is NOT energy from a renewable resource. It describes the residue as 'recyclable ash' but nationwide a lot of this appears to be stockpiled or land-filled or buried under roads. Incineration is a linear process, not recycling. The UK is committed under the Aichi convention to reduce resource consumption to a sustainable level by 2020. That means shifting from a three planet to a one planet economy, with a significant reduction in waste. The incinerator part of the application belongs in the 20th century and should be scrapped as part of a thoroughly circular, zero waste approach, in which non-re-usable materials are no longer produced. The UK government is considering an incineration tax, indicating it now wishes to discourage this method of disposal. Support solar in principle, but have suggested to Cory it looks at leasing the roof space of local industrial units to further increase capacity. Whilst a more local organic waste facility is preferable to existing arrangements, there is still a transportation carbon cost. A condition if the application is approved should be that Cory funds schemes to increase 'on-site' garden composting within its 'catchment'. The more research is done the worse the impacts of air pollution are found to be. Whatever the absolute amount of emissions from another incinerator, Cory will be adding to existing poor air quality. There are serious concerns about harmful pollutants in the gasses released by incineration and the ash. In the Daily Telegraph on 24/5/18 the Professor of Nanotechnology at the University of Buckingham criticised the Environment Agency for nodding through a new incinerator without addressing production of PM1 and ultrafine particles, now recognised as being the most damaging to health. I object to more large buildings right next to Crossness Local Nature Reserve, further reducing the 'big sky' feel of the marshes, and the view from inland to the river. Cory’s artist’s impressions avoided illustrating the combined effect of these new proposals plus the adjacent four-storey data centre build already given outline permission by Bexley Council, in surrounding Crossness LNR by walls of very tall buildings on two sides. What matters to users of the area is the view from the Belvedere area of the Thames scarp, and ground-level from the marshes, whereas the Cory view mock-up is an aerial one that minimises the apparent loss of sight of the river whilst being one that only aviators will experience in practice. Concerned about shading e.g. of the adjacent Reedbed and adding to Cory's already large light pollution impact on the marsh which is a SMINC. "
Local Authorities
Dartford Borough Council
"Dartford Borough Council are satisfied with the assessments that have been carried out by the applicant. The main issue for the Borough Council is the potential for impact on junction 1A of the M25, which serves the Dartford Crossing, and the local roads serving this junction. The junction is over-capacity at peak times and the sensitivity of the local road network to traffic incidences on the strategic network can result in traffic congestion that can take hours to clear, potentially impacting on air quality; the quality of life of residents; and the economy in the area. The Council notes that the assessments for the operational development consider a worse-case scenario where the site is fully served by road vehicles and also a scenario where the site is served predominantly by river. The river scenario results in less vehicle movements and a lower increase in emissions and therefore the Council would seek to encourage this river-based scenario. The Council would seek to ensure that in a worse-case scenario, where the site is served predominantly by road based vehicles that a requirement is imposed for management of HGVs during peak times in order to ensure that the number of additional vehicles using junction 1 A and the local roads accessing it can be minimised and that during incidences and high congestion the HGVs are managed in terms of timings for deliveries. With regard to the Electrical Connection the Council wishes to ensure adequate mitigation and management of the construction process to ensure that the impact on the road network and/or Fastrack is reduced. The Borough Council consider that the method and configuration of temporary traffic management associated with the construction of the Electrical connection should be defined and agreed within the Construction Traffic Management Plan, secured as a Requirement of the DCO, and would seek to have the ability to agree this methodology before any work starts. DBC as planning authority have an interest in ecology and the historic environment but normally seek expert advice from Kent County Council (KCC) on these matters so would defer to KCC and support their advice with regard to these matters. KCC are the local lead flood authority and the local Highways Authority and so the Borough Council would also defer to KCC on these technical matters, However, the impacts on the highway can have local impacts in this area due to the complex inter-relationship of strategic junctions and local roads in the area and the proximity to Dartford Crossing and London and therefore the Council do retain an interest in mitigating any impact on the local road network. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Key
"It is easy to anticipate that the response to this and many of the other representations by Cory will be to dismiss those of us who are concerned about the planet and especially this small area on the Thames Marshes as those not in touch with the Nations's needs to deal with waste. This could not be farther from the truth. I do understand but destroying a delicate small and important natural habitat whilst dangerously polluting themselves the atmosphere is not one which should be condoned or for which planning should be given. There will be others to argue the case on planning grounds much better than me although I fear that as this is a small fairly isolated site which often carries the smell of sewerage numbers may be slim. I would make one major request to the Inspectorate and that is to consider the hour carefully when they inspect the site in relation to tides of the Thames and possibly even the season. I anticipate that Cory will try to show a minimum impact on wildlife and this should not be allowed - it will be devastating. Please, please seek the advice on this matter from the relevant wildlife organisations."
Other Statutory Consultees
Environment Agency
"The Planning Inspectorate National Infrastructure Directorate Temple Quay House Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6PN Our ref: SL/2018/118397/03-L01 Your ref: EN010093 Date: 12 February 2019 Dear Sir/Madam APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER FOR RIVERSIDE ENERGY PARK Please find enclosed our relevant representation for the application for a development consent order in respect of Riverside Energy Park. The Role of the Environment Agency The Environment Agency has a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. Our work helps to support a greener economy through protecting and improving the natural environment for beneficial uses, working with businesses to reduce waste and save money, and helping to ensure that the UK economy is ready to cope with climate change. We will facilitate, as appropriate, the development of low carbon sources of energy ensuring people and the environment are properly protected. We have three main roles: We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on business. We issue a range of permits and consents. We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in and integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. We are an environmental advisor – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. One of our specific functions is as a Flood Risk Management Authority. We have a Environment Agency general supervisory duty relating to specific flood risk management matters in respect of flood risk arising from Main Rivers or the sea. Pre-application consultation We were consulted on the Riverside Energy Park - EIA Scoping notification and consultation on the 29 November 2017. Following our response we were contacted by the Applicant Cory Riverside Energy on the 15 January 2018, to to discuss our scoping response, their initial plans and the potential environmental issues that they would need to address. We subsequently met with the Applicant and have reviewed several draft technical documents with the primarily focused being on the flood risk at the site, the future maintenance of existing Thames Tidal flood defences affected by the development. On the 30 July 2018 we provided formal responses to the Section 42/47 consultations. Outstanding information and issues of concern Our relevant representation outlines where further work, clarification or mitigation is required to ensure that the proposal has no detrimental impact on the environment. We believe our concerns set out in our relevant representations in relation to the impact of the Thames Tidal Flood Defences being raised in the future in line with the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan need to be addressed prior to a development consent order being granted. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any further information. We look forward to continuing to work with the applicant to resolve the matters outlined above, and to ensure the best environmental outcome for this project. Yours sincerely Mr Joe Martyn Planning Specialist Direct dial 020 3025 5546 Direct e-mail [email protected] Relevant Representation 1: Thames Estuary 2100 Plan The application does not demonstrate that the development will not prevent the future raising of the Thames Tidal Flood Defences in line with the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan [redacted] The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, thereafter referred to as 'the Plan' sets out how the Environment Agency is planning to manage tidal flood risk in the Thames estuary over the next 100 years. The Thames Estuary’s most significant flood risk is from a tidal surge event. A world class system of defences currently reduces the risk of tidal flooding, including the Thames Barrier, other flood barriers, flood walls, pumping stations, and flood gates. Increasing pressures such as climate change and population growth mean that tidal flood risk will increase over time in London, unless this risk is carefully managed. The Plan was developed to provide strategic direction for managing flood risk in the Thames Estuary to the end of the century, and was approved by Defra in 2012. The Plan took 6 years to develop, incorporated 300 studies and developed a comprehensive set of recommendations for managing flood risk in the estuary (a copy is available from our website). The Plan has 3 phases of activity: ? Until 2035 – maintain and improve current defences, safeguard areas required for future improvements, and monitor climate change indicators. ? 2035-2050 – raise existing walls, defences and smaller barriers whilst reshaping the riverside environment. ? 2050 – 2100 – determine and implement an option for the future of the Thames Barrier, and adapt other defences as required to work alongside this to protect the estuary. The site is located downstream of the Thames Barrier. Sites downstream of the Thames Barrier are required to raise the Tidal defences by the year 2070 in line with the levels set out in the plan. Riverside Energy Park: Environmental Statement (ES) Chapter 12 – Hydrology, Flood Risk and Water Resources states that issues relating to the condition, impact of the development on and raising of the defences have been addressed in Document Reference: 5.2 Flood Risk Assessment. We have the following comments on 5.2 Flood Risk Assessment (“FRA”) Under 9.2.2 it states; ‘The design life of REP is c.40 years and it is anticipated that the facility will be operational from the year 2024. According to the EA Product 4 data (Appendix D), the 1 in 1,000 year flood level, including climate change, will be 6.40 m AOD in 2070. The current defence crest level is 7.10 m AOD. It is not therefore unnecessary to raise the flood defences to maintain the current standard of flood protection for the lifetime of the Proposed Development.’ Comment: It will need to be demonstrated by the Applicant how the flood defence could be raised to the Thames Estuary 2100 second stage level with the new development in place. The purpose being to demonstrate that the new development is not so close as to significantly restrict future defence raising options. We would ask the Applicant to provide details of a design intent for at least two options for how the defence crest could be raised with the development in place, without undue cost and difficulty. The FRA informed by the report by Doran Consulting states that defence crest raising to 7.1mAOD will be sufficient. However, given that the development has been stated to have a 40 year life span as the REP and will begin normal operations in mid to late 2025 it will need to be demonstrated how the defences can be raised to the 2070 level (delivered in 2070 downstream of the barrier) which is 7.7mAOD, at this location. For earth flood embankments an additional height allowance is required for settlement. We acknowledge that this specific level was not provided to the Applicant as part of their flood risk data request to the Environment Agency. Our Product 4 data focuses on the majority of developments that have a 100-year lifetime. While the proposed development will only just meets the 2070 trigger point for future flood defence raising it is likely that the process of decommissioning the installation take some time. Furthermore the defence raising itself may take a significant amount of time to implement. It will therefore need to be demonstrated that there are workable solutions for providing the crest raising with the development still in place. To demonstrate this we will need outline proposals demonstrating that defence raising is possible and will not be prevented or significantly hindered through the layout or operation of the development. The Applicant must demonstrate that the flood defence will be fit for purpose for the lifetime of the development and that space will be available to enable inspection, maintenance, renewal and not to preclude the future raisings of the flood defence in accordance with the Plan. Detailed drawings of the proposed development in plan and section must be provided with all dimensions, clear demarcation and annotation, a red line boundary of works and the 16m exclusion zone taken from the landward extent of the flood defence also clearly marked. We have no comment on the identified lifespan of the development. The Planning Practice Guidance to the National Planning policy Framework states that: The lifetime of a non-residential development depends on the characteristics of that development. Planners should use their experience within their locality to assess how long they anticipate the development being present for. Developers would be expected to justify why they have adopted a given lifetime for the development, for example, when they are preparing a site-specific flood risk assessment. The impact of climate change needs to be taken into account in a realistic way and developers, the local planning authority and Environment Agency should discuss and agree what allowances are acceptable. Under 9.2.3 the FRA states: ‘According to EA Product 4 data, the tidal flood defences will ultimately be raised to 8.2 m AOD, in accordance with the policy set out in the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan. Maintenance of the tidal flood defences is the responsibility of the riparian owner (Cory, the Applicant).’ Comment: The defences may need to be raised to 8.2m AOD by the year 2120 how this will be funded is yet to be decided. The primary responsibility for the maintenance of the defences rests with the riparian owner. Under 3.6.4 the FRA states: ‘Information provided by the EA indicates that the defences currently offer a 1 in 1,000 year (0.1% annual probability) standard of protection. Asset record details indicate that the EA rated the flood defence wall condition as Grade 2 (Good) in 2018, however in subsequent meeting, the EA downgraded some areas to Grade 3 (Fair) and 4 (Poor).’ The 1 in 1000-year standard of protection relates to the defence crest level relative to the current modelled peak flood water levels. It does not represent an assessment of the structural robustness of the defences which would be very difficult to assess accurately. The defence condition grade quoted in our flood data product were incorrect. The lower condition grades given in the later meeting are accurate. Comment: The Environment Agency wrote to The Company Secretary of Riverside Resource Recovery Limited on the 28th March 2017 and no response has been received from Cory Environmental. In our letter we highlighted that remedial works are required to this section of the tidal defences. The applicant has under taken a partial condition survey of the flood defences but to date we aware of any remedial works being undertaken. A 16 metre wide exclusion zone between the landward extent of the flood defences and the built development should remain clear for operational access. This is in addition to any space required to undertake defence crest raising. We have previously requested detailed cross section drawings to clearly show the spatial relationship between the flood defences including any buried elements, and the new development. These should be provided and drawn at the most critical locations. This is to ensure an adequate set back is achieved. It may be possible for some buried elements to be replaced if a different engineering solution would work while fascinating the development. One cable route passes along Erith High Street. Similar to above, cross section drawings should be provided to show the spatial relationship between the flood defences including any buried elements, and the cable route. We will expect further flood defence condition survey work as some parts of the defences were not accessed and thus were not surveyed by the applicant. Remedial works to bring the defences up to good condition and future maintenance plans should form part of the scheme. Where the cable routes cross a river details of the service crossing should minimise the risk of damage to the river bed and banks including any existing structures. New service bridges are generally resisted. Drilling well below the hard bed of the watercourse is the preferred option. 2: Impact on biodiversity The application does not fully assess the potential impacts on the adjacent Local Nature Reserve (“LNR”). There is no evidence that a full natural history of the site has been obtained, particularly in close proximity to the boundary to be confident about the potential impacts from the construction and operation of the new facility; in particular noise, dust, light, and general increased disturbance. For example the breeding bird survey and over-wintering bird surveys were fairly limited in their scope, and there is no detailed appraisal of the proposed changes as part of the development, and how these might impact on the LNR. The application currently makes statements of intent but provides no evidence to demonstrate that there will be no impact. For example, it states that lighting will be the minimum required and designed taking into account the risk to the adjacent nature reserve. However it provides nothing to determine whether there would still be a net increase in the amount of additional light impacting on the nature reserve, and therefore the nocturnal habits of species currently present there. It is therefore not possible to determine what impact there will be and whether additional mitigation/compensatory measures would be needed to prevent an impact. This is particularly important as the proposed development will create a significant building including elevated vehicle ramps which suggests there will be a significant increase in lighting at the development site. It is recommended that there is a more robust assessment of possible impacts on the LNR at this stage, and much clearer proposals for how (particularly along the boundaries of the development site) measures could be put in place to prevent long term damage. The proposal to put the new cable through the LNR would appear to fail the first test of avoiding impacts on nature conservation because there are reasonable alternative routes along Norman Road. This option could be very disruptive during construction, but may also limit nature conservation options within the LNR subsequently. The submission states that 25% of the flood banks will be converted to Open Mosaic Habitats to compensate for the loss of this habitat. This IS not be compatible with the maintenance requirements of the embankments if they serve a flood defence function. This aspect should be discussed with the Environment Agency, but is not likely to be acceptable. Therefore all the open mosaic habitat would have to be compensated for offsite. The existing grassland habitats on the embankment are of wildlife value in their own right and a net loss of habitat shouldn’t be acceptable for the development as a whole. 3: Ground water protection We have reviewed Chapter 13 of the ES 'Ground Conditions' and accept that site assessment and investigation will be undertaken in accordance with CLR11. 4: Water Framework Directive We note that river works are not proposed under the amended scheme, and therefore WFD water quality compliance for the Thames Middle waterbody, and adjoining Transitional waterbodies are not considered to be affected by the development and we do not anticipate the need to comment upon matters which would not ordinarily require a marine licence. 5: Environmental Permit The applicant has submitted an application for an Environmental Permit for the operation of the site which has been duly made and is under consideration and we will comment in due course so far as is appropriate at the Written Rep stage. The Environmental Permitting and Development Consent Processes are separate regimes and we are unable to prejudge the likelihood of an application for a permit being approved. The applicant should ensure that the information submitted under both regimes is the same to ensure that both approvals reflect each other. 6: Draft Development Consent Order (dDCO) We have not provided detailed comments on the dDCO at this stage as we consider there are still fundamental issues that need to be overcome, specifically a decision on which landfall option the Applicant intends to progress with before detailed comments can be provided. Due to our concerns in relation to the Tidal Defences and Thames Estuary 2100 Plan, we consider that the dDCO is not adequate. Under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016, you must submit plans to the Environment Agency and apply for a Flood Risk Activity Permit (“FRAP”) if you want to do work: ? In, over or under a main river; ? Within 8m of the bank of a main river, or 16m if it is a tidal main river or ? Within 8m of any flood defence structure or culvert on a main river, or 16m on a tidal main river Flood risk activities can be classified as: Exclusions, Exemptions, Standard Rules or Bespoke. These are associated with the level of risk your proposed works may pose to people, property and the environment. The Applicant is seeking to disapply the requirement to obtain a FRAP as part of the DCO process. Given our outstanding concerns we are currently not in the position to agree to this. Protected Provisions We have received proposed Protected Provisions from Pinsent Masons LLP on behalf of the applicant and have sent our preferred protected provisions to the applicant and Pinsent Masons LLP."
Local Authorities
Greater London Authority
"The Mayor submitted his initial consultation response opposing this application on 30 July 2018[1], which set out the reasons why the Mayor opposes the DCO application for a new energy from waste (EFW) incinerator in Bexley. The principal issues are summarised as follows: Waste capacity need: The EFW facility is not required for managing London’s non-recycled waste and would be detrimental to achieving the Mayor’s reduction and recycling targets set out in his London Environment Strategy[2]. Approving the EFW facility would leave the local community with a stranded and undesirable asset. GLA modelling shows that London is expecting a significant surplus of around 300,000 tonnes per annum incineration capacity by 2036 if the Mayor’s reduction and recycling targets are achieved[3]. Inconsistency with national policy: Approving the EFW facility would be detrimental to implementing national waste policy and would not effectively implement the waste hierarchy, which places recycling ahead of energy from waste. The proposed EFW facility would incinerate recyclable waste and not be in compliance with the National Policy Statement (NPS) for Energy (EN-1) Part 3.4, The Role of Renewable Energy. Part 3.4 describes EFW and states that “only waste that cannot be re-used or recycled with less environmental impact and would otherwise go to landfill should be used for energy recovery”. Furthermore, the Resources and Waste Strategy (RWS) and Budget 2018 sets out “the Government’s long-term ambition to maximise the amount of waste sent to recycling instead of incineration and landfill”, including consideration of a tax on incineration[4]. The RWS states that “significant additional residual waste energy recovery capacity...would not necessarily be needed” and that an industry study showed that “no new EFW capacity would be needed”, if the Government’s 65% recycling target was met by 2035. Energy and heat demand: There is insufficient foreseeable heat demand in the local area for the proposed REP EFW to operate as an effective combined heat and power (CHP) plant, and the GLA dispute the projected performance of the proposed facility against the Mayor’s carbon intensity floor policy. Part 3.4 of the Energy NPS references Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) guidelines which requires applications to either include CHP or contain evidence that the possibilities for CHP have been fully explored. The applicant proposes to include CHP, having explored the possibility through a feasibility study. The GLA consider that the application is not in compliance with the DECC guidelines in that the consideration of the CHP opportunities are overstated, being based on conclusions and criterion that the GLA dispute. The applicant’s study focuses on a heat supply from the proposed EFW plant and ignores the fact that the existing adjacent Cory Riverside Resource Recovery (RRR) EFW facility could meet the feasible heat demand. The RRR facility is equipped with an underutilised heat off-take arrangement with a capacity of 28.6 MW that could supply up to 200 GWh of heat each year. The recently-completed Thamesmead and Belvedere study work[5] (December 2018) carried out for the London Borough of Bexley and supported by the GLA concluded that the anticipated heat demand in the area could be met entirely by the existing RRR facility. The proposed anaerobic digestion facility is supported for the renewable energy benefits this would bring, however the GLA are concerned that this would not be delivered by the applicant. Air quality impacts: The geographical scope and magnitude of the impacts on air quality, based on the information provided, is not in accordance with the London Plan or the draft London Plan air quality policies, which could jeopardise the achievement of his wider aim to improve air quality throughout London to legal limits in the shortest time possible, in particular with respect to Nitrogen Dioxide and ultra-fine particulate matter (PM2.5). The Environmental Statement appears to show that there will be non-negligible impacts on surrounding neighbourhoods, including schools and residential premises, which would not be acceptable to the Mayor. However, it should be noted that there is some confusion between “Process Contribution” (PC), as reported in table 7.34 of the Environmental Statement, and the accompanying text which assigns the same values to “Predicted Environmental Concentration” (PEC). In doing so, PCs that would be considered minor or moderately adverse are instead described as a “negligible” PEC, which the GLA consider to be incorrect and which serves to obscure the true impact of the development on air quality. The majority of these impacts are expected to occur in Rainham in the London Borough of Havering. Paragraph 5.2.9 of NPS EN-1 states that air quality should be a significant concern where substantial changes are expected. Notwithstanding the incorrect PEC assessment mentioned above in reporting within the Environmental Statement, there appears to be substantial changes expected for a range of pollutants, which the GLA do not consider to be acceptable. The development will also have a substantial impact on pollutant levels within Havering’s Air Quality Management Area. Citations: (1) [redacted] (2) See [redacted]. The Mayor has set targets to reduce food waste and associated packaging waste by 50% per head and achieve 65% municipal waste recycling by 2030. Figure 48 shows London’s expected surplus energy from waste capacity by 2030 using London facilities only; (3) Includes incineration capacity both in London and elsewhere the UK managing London’s waste. This modelling information was submitted to Peter Brett associates (acting on behalf of Cory) on 9 November 2018 and is available on request; (4) See [redacted]. (5) Thamesmead and Belvedere Heat Network Feasibility Study: Work Package 1, London Borough of Bexley, December 2018. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Butler
"I am very concerned at the proposal for this Riverside Energy Park. Having been a 'friend' of Crossness Nature Reserve since its inception I am deeply worried about the impact it will have on the many and varied species that count this place as home. There are very few sites like this in the London Area and the building of this 'Park' can only have a serious negative impact. I wonder what the rationale for this incinerator is as it can only be a disincentive to recycle and reduce our waste in the first place. Bexley is quite rightly proud of its recycling rate but I wonder how long that might last if this gets built? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Goldsmith
"I object to the construction of another waste incinerator. I am local resident and a “friend” of Crossness Nature Reserve, as such I frequently visit the area surrounding the the existing Cory riverside waste incinerator. It’s an area of great significance for wildlife, with many species of flora, something enjoyed by many in the local community. Indeed some of these species are rare and endangered. But, with so many large structures being built, this open space is quickly disappearing. This proposed additional incinerator will have a detrimental impact on the ecology of the local area and on the environment as a whole. As a society we should put all our efforts on recycling more and generally move towards a “zero waste” goal. Burning more waste equals less recycling, and indeed this has happened in west London since the existing Cory riverside incinerator was built. Electricity produced by burning waste is not “green”. The construction phase will have a devastating impact on the local wildlife and the community alike: loss of open spaces, loss of habitat, increased traffic, increased pollution, possible contamination of soil and water, noise and disturbance. Once the facility becomes operational, this negative impact will continue: increased traffic both on the river and local road, increased air pollution, shading of areas important for the wildlife, light pollution, cipontinued risk of water contamination and the negative visual impact of yet another large industrial structure on the river Thames."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Sutton
"I am very much opposed to the Cory Riverside Energy 'Park'. We do not need another waste incinerator in London, and we certainly don't need another incinerator immediately adjacent the existing in order to deal with west London's waste. We should be moving away from incineration rather than undermining national recycling targets. The London Borough of Bexley has impeccable recycling statistics; it would be a tragedy to undermine this with old technology that does little to encourage re-use and recycling. I am concerned about the air quality (nitrates and sulphur emissions) associated with this development that will affect not only local residents, but also the open spaces both in the immediate vicinity at Crossness Nature Reserve, as well as Rainham and Thurrock Marshes across the river. Finally, the fact that this proposal is immediately adjacent the ecologically valuable Crossness Nature Reserve, cannot be ignored. This part of the Erith Marshes supports Water Voles, breeding Barn Owls and Kestrels, numerous red and amber-listed bird species, a rare assemblage of aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates including Britain's rarest bumblebee: the Shrill Carder Bee. Riverside Energy Park will have negative impacts by way of shading, lighting, potential soil and water contamination during the construction process, as well as noise and vehicle disturbance. It also cannot be ignored that despite its urban location, Crossness NR is a popular site for bird watchers and naturalists, walkers, joggers, cyclists, dog walkers etc. We all know that these open spaces are important for health and wellbeing. The visual intrusion of this proposal is huge. Who wants to visit a nature reserve with two waste incinerators sitting immediately on its boundary? It doesn't exactly say 'health and wellbeing' does it? Finally, the community benefit of this site should not be forgotten, and the fact that public money has been invested in Crossness NR. Thames Water have of course invested heavily in their site to benefit both wildlife and the local community, but so too has the public. Crossness was the recipient of a huge investment from a Council-led initiative known as Managing the Marshes. This was funded by the then ODPM. Several years later, enhancements were made by the Council-led Belvedere Green Links programme. These projects have encouraged community involvement and educational benefits to both locals, and those further afield. Cory should not be allowed to undermine this great work in order to incinerate more rubbish. "
Local Authorities
Kent County Council
"Ms Simone Wilding National Infrastructure Planning Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN Environment, Planning and Enforcement Invicta House County Hall Maidstone Kent ME14 1XX Phone: 03000 415718 Ask for: Chloe Palmer Email: [email protected] 12 February 2019 Dear Simone, Re: Application by Cory Riverside Energy for an Order granting Development Consent for the proposed Riverside Energy Park – Relevant Representation Submission Following the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance (14 December 2018) of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application for Riverside Energy Park (REP), Kent County Council (KCC) requests to be registered as an Interested Party at the Examination. This letter provides a summary of the main aspects of the proposal which KCC agrees and/or disagrees, together with an appropriate explanation, in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 8.3. In summary, an outline of the principal submissions that KCC intends to make in relation to the application will concern: - Highways and Transportation, as the Local Highway Authority for Kent; - Minerals and Waste, as the Local Minerals and Waste Authority for Kent; - Public Rights of Way (PRoW); - Heritage; - Biodiversity; and - Economic Development. Highways and Transportation The proposed route options for the electrical connection are set out in section 2.8 of the Transport Assessment (TA). Paragraph 2.8.2 states that the preferred electrical connection route from Picardy Manorway in the London Borough of Bexley would follow the line of the A2016 Bronze Age Way, onto the A206 Northend Road / Thames Road / Bob Dunn Way. Once in Dartford, the document states that there are a series of alternative routes turning north to Littlebrook substation via Joyce Green Lane/Dunlop Close, or Halcrow Avenue/Rennie Drive. Paragraph 2.8.3 states that the final route for the electrical connection will be confirmed following further detailed design work by UK Power Networks (UKPN). The County Council would request that the applicant confirms why the connection could not be made via the River Thames, to avoid delays on the strategic road network. Paragraph 2.8.5 states that an option for the electrical connection route from Bob Dunn Way to the Littlebrook substation would follow the Fastrack dedicated busway between Binnie Road and Rennie Drive. Due to the strategic nature of Bob Dunn Way, and the 15-24-month construction timeline, if the electrical connection has to be made along one of the two proposed routes, it would be preferable for the electrical connection to be constructed along the line of the Fastrack dedicated busway, to reduce the impact on the local highway network. The method and configuration of temporary traffic management associated with the construction of the electrical connection should be defined and agreed within the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) and secured as a requirement of the DCO, to avoid undue impact on Fastrack. This should be reflected in the Statement of Common Ground (SoCG). Section 4.3 of the TA sets out the construction trip generation and states that this has been based on a first principle approach. It is acknowledged that the basis for the construction phase has been informed by the specialist contractor for this type of facility and that further details for the construction programme would be provided in the CTMP, secured as a requirement of the DCO. Assurances are sought that when there is an incident on the local highway network, the operator will adopt a contingency procedure system by which they would seek to manage the movement of lorries to minimise further effects on the road network during these periods. The County Council previously commented that it supports a route that avoids the Cray Mill Bridge, as this would minimise the disruption during construction to the approach of the A206 Bob Dunn Way. However, the route via Cray Mill Bridge is still proposed, which is disappointing. The CTMP (secured as a requirement of the DCO) should provide details of the location and temporary traffic management associated with the construction of the electrical connection, including at the Cray Mill Bridge, to minimise the impact on the network during the construction period. Paragraph 4.3.4 of the TA states that “it is estimated that approximately 14% (157) of workers during month 13 would be from the EU and other areas outside the UK, while approximately 33% (361) workers would be from within Greater London and 53% (579) from the UK (excluding Greater London)”. Further details should be provided in the CTMP, secured as a requirement of the DCO Table 4.4 of the TA sets out the predicted traffic generation along a number of links during the 45-month construction phase. The table shows that Bob Dunn Way (north of the A2026 Burnham Road roundabout and Bob Dunn Way, east of Marsh Street North) will each receive an additional 540 trips per day generated by the development, which are predicted to occur before 8am and after 6pm and provide a worst-case assessment. In order to monitor the traffic generation on the KCC network, it is requested that the County Council is involved with the relevant Travel Plan monitoring/steering groups that should be established as part of the Travel Plan, and that the Travel Plan sets out remedial actions that will be implemented in the event of a breach of the predicted traffic generation. It should also be noted that if the applicant is planning to alter or maintain highway land, it is likely that a stopping up order will be required. Highway boundary information may also be required, if it has not been applied for already. Please note that fees apply and more information can be found at https://www.kent.gov.uk/roads-and-travel/what-we-look-after/highway-land/highway-boundary-enquiries. Minerals and Waste The County Council considers that the methodology used in the submitted Minerals Assessment is acceptable in identifying any potentially important economic minerals that are at potential risk of sterilisation. The main data set used within the Minerals Assessment is held as discrete bore hole-based data by the British Geological Survey (BGS). The applicant has confirmed the presence of potentially important economic minerals and has applied the exemption from the presumption to safeguard criteria of Policy DM7 of the adopted Kent Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2013-30 (KWMLP). Although only one of the exemption criteria of Policy DM7 of the KMWLP needs to be invoked, the applicant has considered all seven, and the County Council is of the view that criterion five of Policy DM7 of the KMWLP has been successfully demonstrated: “Material considerations indicate that the need for the development overrides the presumption for mineral safeguarding such that sterilisation of the mineral can be permitted following the exploration of opportunities for prior extraction”. Policy DM7 can be invoked, as the minerals affected by the cable position are required to maintain the cable’s structural integrity and are of limited volume, meaning that they are unlikely to have any commercial viability. Moreover, if the minerals were to be extracted, they would have to be replaced by other suitable land engineering grade materials, which might, have to be an aggregate type material. In conclusion, the County Council is content that the need case put forward for the energy park development overrides the presumption to safeguard the limited, and unlikely to be viable to extract, safeguarded mineral deposits affected by this non-minerals’ development. Public Rights of Way (PRoW) The County Council is keen to ensure that the interests of the KCC PRoW and Access Service are represented with respect to statutory duty to protect and improve PRoW in the County. Attention is drawn to the existence of PRoW DB1, DB3, DB5, DB50 and DB56, which pass through (or directly adjacent to) the boundary of the application site. The proposal is not expected to have a significant impact on the PRoW network in Kent, as the main facility would be located in the neighbouring authority of London Borough of Bexley. However, the proposed Electrical Connection and Temporary Construction Compounds could cause significant disruption for path users. With reference to Chapter 3 of the Environmental Statement (ES) (Paragraph 3.5.39), the County Council does have some concerns over the locations of the Cable Route Temporary Construction Compounds. Whilst the exact locations of these sites have yet to be identified, it is understood that they would be positioned within the limits of the application boundary. These compounds could therefore be sited on a right of way and create an obstruction for path users. It is understood that temporary closures would be required during the construction phase of the project. Where necessary, the duration of these closures should be kept to a minimum, as they can be an inconvenience for path users and cause disruption for the public. Convenient diversion routes should be provided for the duration of any temporary closure, to avoid fragmentation of the PRoW network. Table 6.2 of Chapter 6 of the ES states that the DCO “provides for temporary closures and diversions of PRoW.” Whilst the DCO enables the applicant to temporarily close the PRoWs listed, it is requested that the County Council is consulted to discuss the paths that would be temporarily closed. This would enable the PRoW team to negotiate these closures, to ensure that disruption for the public would be minimised. Details of temporary path closures, diversions and mitigation works should be discussed with the KCC PRoW and Access Service at the earliest opportunity and included within a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP). For ease of reference, it is requested that the CTMP includes a dedicated chapter focused on PRoW measures. Early engagement should ensure that the impacts of the proposed development can be fully assessed in advance, with appropriate mitigation provided to minimise disruption for PRoW users. There must be no disturbance of the PRoW surface without the express permission of the KCC PRoW and Access Service. This point is of particular significance when considering potential trenching works and the installation of new cable infrastructure. On completion of the construction work, the surface of the PRoW must be restored to its original condition (or better) before the path is reopened to the public. The cost of such restoration would need to be met by the applicant. With regards to construction traffic, vehicles should not pass along or across PRoW without prior approval from the KCC PRoW and Access Service. It would be the responsibility of the applicant to make good any vehicular damage to the surface of the right of way. Table 6.2 of Chapter 6 of the ES states that “there would be no permanent closures or diversions of Public Rights of Way (PRoW) for the main REP site or the Electrical Connection, subject to detailed design”. This initial approach is welcomed by the County Council, but if the applicant concludes that a permanent extinguishment or diversion is required, they will need to legally change the right of way. The applicant is advised to contact the KCC PRoW and Access Service at the earliest opportunity to discuss this process. In response to previous comments made, it is understood that the route of the underground electrical connection would be ducted with the inclusion of access covers (Table 6.2 - ES - Chapter 6). This design should allow the applicant to access the cabling infrastructure in the future, when maintenance or repair work is required, without disturbing the surface of the PRoW. This design approach is welcomed by the PRoW and Access Service, as it should minimise long term disruption for path users. The County Council notes that the applicant has acknowledged the existence of the England Coast Path National Trail. Whilst Natural England has not yet published its proposal for the England Coast Path in this area, the preferred route being considered is likely to pass through the boundary of the application site and follow existing PRoW. The applicant has considered the potential impacts of the development on the England Coast Path, stating that temporary closures and diversions may be required. The County Council requests that the applicant contacts Natural England when this situation arises, to ensure that the temporary closures are appropriately managed and public disruption is minimised. Overall, the main REP facility is not expected to have any significant impacts on the PRoW network in Kent, due its location in the neighbouring authority of the London Borough of Bexley. However, the proposed electrical connection would have an impact on the PRoW network in Kent during the construction phase of the project. The applicant has acknowledged the existence of the PRoW network and has considered the impacts of the project on public access. Temporary closures and path diversions are proposed during the construction phase, which should maintain network connectivity for the public. With advance planning, the works should not cause too much disruption for path users, though to achieve this outcome, it is requested that the applicant engages with the KCC PRoW and Access Service to clarify the appropriate mitigation measures. Heritage The County Council has some concerns regarding the electrical connection trench depth that is proposed. Chapter 10 of the ES states that the “depth for the electrical connection trench is c.1.2m, except where there is potential for direction drill, or localised deeper trench, to be required to pass below a specific constraint” (section 10.4.3). The assessment and mitigation agreements with KCC Heritage were based on the depth of impact being no greater than 0.9m below current surface, whereas the proposed 1.2m depth suggests the impact on the archaeological resource in Kent will extend deeper than 0.9m. The 1.2m depth of impact should trigger the need for more detailed archaeological and geoarchaeological assessments and fieldwork in Kent to ensure that there is a suitable programme of works for the scheme. The County Council expects the scheme to be subject to an appropriate geoarchaeological programme of works and it is requested that a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) on geoarchaeological works for Kent is provided demonstrating reasonable assessment methodology and significance criteria for Kent. Further clarification is requested in Section 10.7 of Chapter 10 in which there is little mention of the heritage in Kent. Whilst there are no significant effects to the identified historic environment in Kent, the potential effect of the scheme on unidentified heritage assets should be acknowledged and it may be that a degree of ‘embedded mitigation’ would be appropriate for Kent. Clarification on the extent and nature of geoarchaeological and archaeological works within Kent should be outlined, along with the extent of proposed mitigation. The County Council considers that the mitigation set out in Section 10.11.4 and 10.11.5 of the ES is not sufficiently robust for Kent and there needs to be a clear requirement for a programme of geoarchaeological work and a separate programme of archaeological work. Table 10.7 does not clearly mention non-designated geoarchaeological deposits within Kent and does not put forward any potential mitigation or assessment of residual effects. Table 10.7 needs to make clear reference to non-designated geoarchaeological deposits within Kent and put forward suitable mitigation, set out in a WSI agreed with KCC Heritage. The County Council previously stated that there was no need for a Deposit Model in Kent on the basis that groundworks do not go below 0.9m. Even though a Deposit Model is not required, a programme of geoarchaeological works is still required. There is no mention of geoarchaeological work required in Kent in Table 17.1 of Chapter 17 for the Kent section and the wording states “if required”. Geoarchaeological works and archaeological works are definitely required for Kent and these need to be set out in WSIs agreed with KCC Heritage. Biodiversity The County Council notes that a range of ecological surveys have been carried out and there is a good understanding of the ecological interest of the survey area. However, the County Council requires clarity to understand where within the survey area species have been recorded and subsequently where proposed mitigation is to be implemented. It is understood that whilst the works within Kent will be largely restricted to the Electrical Connection Route located within existing roads infrastructure, the exact connection route has not yet been decided. Consideration should be given to both national and local policy, particularly the designation of the Dartford Marshes Local Wildlife Site (LWS) and its adjacent habitats. Whilst is it considered that there would be a limited impact on habitat loss and protected/notable species due to the electrical connection route being located on existing roads, there is potential for works to encroach on to roadside verges. In this situation, the County Council suggests the implementation of a precautionary mitigation strategy, as it is likely only to be a small area which will be impacted. Similarly, the electrical connection route should be restored back to the same or improved standard. Economic Development The Study Areas shown on Figure 14.1 (Section 14.4, Chapter 14 of the ES) are more extensive than the County Council would have expected. Less extensive areas would alter the Baseline figures of Economically Active population, but it is considered that this would have minimal impact on the on the socio-economic assessment of the development covered under Sections 14.9 and 14.10 of the ES. The County Council would like clarity regarding how the Total Economically Active population has been derived for each Study Area Table 14.8 of Section 14.6, as the figures do not seem to relate to the population totals given in Table 14.6 and cannot be derived using the proportions in Table 14.7. The analysis of Key Business Sectors in Section 14.6 focuses primarily on the Greater London Area, on the basis that the Wider Region Study Area covers a large part of Greater London. However, it is understood that about a third of the Wider Region Study Area is in Kent, with significant parts of this covering Essex and Sussex. Confirmation is therefore required as to why the Key Business Sector analysis focuses on Greater London. The County Council would like confirmation of the measures contained within the Code of Construction Practice and the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) to address any adverse impacts on Dartford Bridge Community Primary School and The Leigh UTC during construction of the Electrical Connection. It is stated in paragraph 14.11.1 of Section 14.12 that the applicant “has a strong preference to recruit locally wherever possible” and commitment to this preference should be provided, such as a Local Employment and Skills Development Plan. Chapter 14 states that across the wider region, there would be 206 additional jobs created during the construction period of 3.6 years and 39 additional jobs created once the facility was operational. A 3km area has been assumed for the assessment of the development’s impact on community facilities, which effectively limits the impact to the London Borough of Bexley. However, the additional jobs for the wider region extends for a distance of up to 60km from the development, covering a much wider area than the 3km. This has two effects: a) The impact from the additional jobs created would extend beyond the 3km area assumed, and b) The impact would be dissipated across a much wider area. Taking the above into account, the following assessment has been made of the impact on KCC service provision resulting from the additional jobs created. This has been done for both construction and operational jobs. Construction Jobs As the additional jobs created during the construction period would be temporary, their impact on KCC services and facilities would be minimal. It has been assumed that construction workers would take up temporary residence for the duration of the construction period and, therefore, unlikely to establish permanent homes that would accommodate their families and dependents. Operational Jobs If it is assumed that the 39 additional operational jobs created are accommodated solely within Kent, then the demand generated on KCC services and facilities would be as follows: Primary Education 11 pupils Secondary Education 8 pupils Community Learning & Skills Up to 3 clients Library Services Up to 19 clients Youth Services Up to 2 clients Families & Social Care 1 client If all of this demand was to be accommodated by KCC services and facilities within Dartford, it is concluded that the demand would be accommodated within existing capacity. This conclusion is more relevant when it is considered that the wider Region covers an extensive area that would dissipate the impact of the additional jobs not just across a larger part of Kent but also other authorities including Essex, Sussex and a number of London Boroughs. It is unclear where the total number of workers for each Study Area in Tables 14.17 and 14.18 of Section 14.11 have come from, and the connection with either the Total Economically Active population in Table 14.8 or the population totals in Table 14.6 in unclear. Whilst this may not have much effect on the later assessments of cumulative impact in Section 14.10, it would provide clarity of evidence. Chapter 17 of the ES should include reference to commit the applicant to ensure the statement on local recruitment in paragraph 14.11.1 is both put into place and monitored. ________________________________________ The County Council looks forward to working with the applicant and the Planning Inspectorate as the project progresses through the DCO process and welcomes the opportunity to comment on matters of detail throughout the Examination. Should you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Stephanie Holt-Castle Interim Director - Environment, Planning and Enforcement"
Members of the Public/Businesses
London First
"I am writing on behalf of London First in support of the application by Cory Riverside Energy for an Order granting development consent for the Riverside Energy Park. London First is a business campaigning group with a mission to make London the best city in the world to do business. We convene and mobilise business leaders to tackle the key challenges facing our capital. We are made up of over 200 leading employers across a wide range of sectors, overseen by a non-executive board of influential business leaders. A list of our members is available on our website. We believe that Cory’s proposals for the Riverside Energy Park would deliver significant additional waste management and energy generation capacity vital to supporting a successful and growing capital to become more sustainable and resilient. We further believe that Cory’s proposals are consistent with relevant national and London policies. The draft London Plan sets out how the capital’s population is projected to increase by 70,000 every year, reaching 10.58 million in 2041. This means that just to meet demand, at least 66,000 new homes need to be built – along with space for tens of thousands of new jobs – every single year. Supporting the needs of future businesses and a growing population, more sustainably, requires significant investment in the infrastructure of London and the SE, much of which is operating at or near capacity. London and the SE already faces a significant waste capacity shortfall, with significant volumes of waste sent to either landfill or overseas for treatment. Major new infrastructure is required in the capital to enable London and the SE to divert waste from landfill and become self-sufficient in waste management, while also increasing its ability to generate low carbon and renewable energy to London’s businesses and residents. The proposed REP would meet these needs by providing low carbon electricity from residual waste, which would otherwise be sent to landfill or exported overseas. It also offers significant potential for heat distribution, which is of particular relevance given the scale of proposed housing growth in the wider area, including the nearby Thamesmead redevelopment. By using the river Thames, Cory will also minimise road movements, reducing congestion and carbon emissions, while bringing significant air quality improvements. Cory is a longstanding and respected operator in the capital, with established relationships with businesses and local authorities. The proposed new REP would complement its existing Belvedere facility, and create around 85 new jobs, on top of the 365 people already employed in the capital. The REP is a market-led proposal, backed by investors with a proven track record in infrastructure investment, which would require no public subsidy. We believe that the REP would significantly enhance the ability of London and the wider SE to meet its future waste management and energy generation needs. The proposed REP has the potential to make London cleaner, greener and more resilient, while supporting additional new jobs – all at no cost to the taxpayer. We strongly support the proposal. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Appleby
"I am a resident of the borough of Bexley and in the 30+ years have been concerned at the pace of incremental encroachment onto the few sites of ecological importance that remain. Crossness nature reserve needs the adjoining fields to thrive and is too valuable to the residents of London to loose. I am no expert but I do know the value of what we would loose should the plans for the Cory site development go ahead. Thanks Mark Appleby "
Non-Statutory Organisations
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 Riverside Energy Park 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. There are references in the Book of Reference to land owned by Network Rail. Network Rail objects to any proposed compulsory acquisition of its land or any rights in, over or under its land or extinguishment of its rights in third party land. 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. Network Rail is pleased to note that the promoter has included Protective Provisions for the benefit of the railway based upon Network Rail’s standard in a schedule to the draft DCO. However, a number of amendments to Network Rail’s standard Protective Provisions have been made to those contained within the draft DCO to which Network Rail cannot agree. Network Rail objects to the draft Order on the basis that it does not contain sufficient protections for works on or around the railway and will press, both in representations and in submissions at hearings, the absolute need for protective provisions to be included in a DCO where Network Rail’s operational infrastructure is affected by the proposal. Network Rail would ordinarily also expect that the parties will enter into an asset protection agreement and, for any acquisition of land or rights, an easement. Any acquisition by consent of Network Rail would also need to go through the clearance process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Winckworth Sherwood LLP on behalf of Port of London Authority
"The Port of London Authority (“PLA”) is the statutory body responsible for the conservancy of the River Thames (“the river”) and the administration of navigation on, and works and dredging in, under or over, the river. Its area of jurisdiction and regulatory powers are mainly in the Port of London Act 1968 (“the 1968 Act”), with further legislative provision made in Harbour Revision Orders made between 1975 and 2015. The area of the river affected by the proposed Order is within the PLA’s jurisdiction and the affected river bed is owned by the PLA. The PLA does not object to the proposals in principle but has detailed concerns which call for amendments in the proposed Order and plans. The Order limits extend into the river. The reason for this is unclear: the proposed Order does not appear to contemplate any works or operations in the river. Indeed the Applicant has confirmed to the PLA that it does not intend to exercise the powers of the Order in the river. As applied for, however, the inclusion of river areas within the Order limits has the effect that certain Order powers could potentially be exercised in the river, namely articles 17 (discharge of water), 18 (authority to survey and investigate land), 19 (protective works to buildings), 30 (temporary use of land for construction) and 31 (temporary use of land for maintenance). The draft Order does not include protective provisions for the benefit of the PLA. If the powers are indeed intended to include or affect the PLA’s land, protective provisions are necessary. The form of such provisions is well precedented. In discussion with the PLA the Applicant has explained the inclusion of river areas within the Order limits as “precautionary”. It has now confirmed that it is “committed to moving the [Order limits] nearer to the shore”. This is welcome. At the same time, at present it falls short of an assurance that the limits will be adjusted to exclude the river altogether. The Applicant has also indicated to the PLA that if there were to be any activities in the river it would wish them to be regulated by the PLA under the 1968 Act. Appropriate Order amendments are promised. The PLA would welcome the adjustment of limits and the application of the 1968 Act and looks forward to seeing the Applicant’s proposals. Whether or not the Applicant amends the Order, the fact is that the current proposals include within the Order limits, and in consequence relate to, land comprising river bed owned by the PLA. The PLA ought therefore to have been included in the Book of Reference and served with a landowner’s notice. Contrary to section 57 of the Planning Act 2008 and regulation 7(1) of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 this did not happen. The Examining Authority should be made aware of the position, but the PLA does in fact know of the application and the draft Order’s proposals so, fortunately, the omission has not had any adverse effect on the PLA. The PLA will seek to agree with the Applicant amendments to the draft Order and plans in respect of these and other matters. The PLA may need to make further representations insofar as the river is affected by the Order proposals. "
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Royal Borough of Greenwich
"The Council’s initial areas of comment in relation to the scheme are as follows: Air Quality: 1. The Council note that the methodological approach to the air quality assessment was the subject of extensive consultation with the Environment Agency (the process Regulator) and the London Boroughs of Bexley, Dartford, Havering and the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham. 2. The Council note from the air quality report (Chapter 7 para 7.6.1-7.6.3) that there are many components that contribute to the uncertainty in predicted concentrations. The models used in the assessment are dependent upon the traffic and emission data inputs which will have inherent uncertainties associated with them. The report informed that a disparity between national road transport emissions projections and measured annual mean concentrations of nitrogen oxides and NO2 has been identified in recent years. The report also informed that whilst projections forecast a significant decrease in both annual mean nitrogen oxides and NO2 concentrations from road traffic emissions, at many monitoring sites, levels have remained relatively stable, or have shown a slight increase. 3. The proposed activities fall within an area designated as an Air Quality Management Area for NO2 and PM10. These pollutants, particularly NO2, are produced by waste incineration processes and therefore any assessment will need to be considered in more detail. The proposed operations will need appropriate mitigation measures in place to control these emissions and reduce the risk of exceeding air quality standards considering the uncertainty mentioned in (2) above. 4. With regard to the Policy analysis, the Chapter 7 of the environmental statement refers to National (England and Wales) policy and technical guidance (LAQM) rather than the relevant London Local Air Quality Management (LLAQM) and its associated policy and Technical Guidance in which was published in May 2016. However, The Council is satisfied that the methodological approach which includes other pertinent guidance is satisfactory for the purpose of evaluating this application. 5. The Council note from application section 5 and para 2.1.25 (Environmental Statement document reference 6.4) regarding Combined heat and power (CHP) that the REP would be CHP enabled with necessary infrastructure within the REP site (heat exchangers, pumps and pressurisation system included). This is in line with the current requirements for new energy from waste plants. 6. The Council note from the Environmental Statement chapter 7 para 7.11.2 further mitigation and enhancement section that the options to reduce emissions from the current fleet of tugs are being investigated by Cory. This might require operational practice optimisation. An appropriate planning condition might be necessary at the approval stage of the application. 7. The Council note from the report Chapter 7 para 7.13 that using appropriate mitigation measure, air quality impact from the construction and decommissioning phase of the proposed development can be managed, which can be ensured using appropriate planning conditions. The report did not identify any operational emissions to air quality from increased road and river movement. Operational emission from REP has been predicted as negligible, but there are some uncertainty also noted above (see 2). 8. The Council notes from the Air Quality Assessment Chapter 7 (p.24), the results of the assessment have demonstrated no significant impacts on air quality, including the Royal Borough of Greenwich. 9. The Council is satisfied that, so far as Greenwich Council is concerned, air quality impacts associated with the operation of the proposed waste to energy facility will be negligible if appropriate mitigation measure during construction and operational phase is ensured using appropriate planning conditions and environmental permit conditions (where appropriate). Noise 1. The Council note from the report para 8.2.8 that the standard and methodology has been agreed with the London Borough of Bexley. The Council note from the report (Chapter 8 para 8.7) that the potential noise and light effects on ecological receptors are addressed in Chapter 11 Measures to be employed in mitigating noise, which are also applicable to ecological receptors are provided in Section 8.8 of the above mentioned report. 2. Generally, the Council concur with the methodological approach and policy analysis. The noise predictions do not include any noise sensitive receptors in the Greenwich Borough. However, The Council is satisfied that noise emissions from the proposed energy park will not cause disturbance to the closest receptor if appropriate mitigation measure as delineated in the report para 8.13.1-8.13.6 is adopted. Transport and Highways: 1. The Council wishes to reinforce the commitment by the applicant to use the river to transport the majority of material and any deviation from this would severely affect the highway network. 2. The Council recommend that a suitable construction management plan is to be agreed with neighbouring authorities not just L.B. Bexley. The Council is currently reviewing the detailed documentation submitted with the DCO application, therefore the Council would reserve the right to make further written representations during the examination should it be required. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tara Lucas
"I live just a few miles away in, Kent and have been visiting the area by the Cory site for many years for recreation (walking) and wildlife observation. This area looks unremarkable but is part of a large mosaic of first class wildlife habitat which is one of the best in Greater London with a huge diversity of species, especially birds and invertebrates. I wish to register objection to this development on two major grounds. Firstly it will have a detrimental impact on sensitive habitat, some of which will be under the building's footprint, more which will be destroyed during construction process and yet more nearby areas in terms of traffic, pollution, light levels, noise. Secondly, the case for another incinerator is not justified. We have suffered poor air pollution from burner 1 and is wholly inappropriate in light of moved to recycle and reduce waste. This is utter unacceptable to put another burner in where there is no need and ends up as place to dump the rubbish of London and reduce quality of life for local residents blowing up and down the river."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP) on behalf of Thames Water Utilities Limited
"Thames Water Utilities Limited Relevant Representation 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Thames Water Utilities Limited (“TWUL”) wishes to register as an Interested Party as the Riverside Energy Park (“the Project”) will have an adverse impact on its following interests: 1.1.1 The Crossness Nature Reserve; 1.1.2 Land at Bob Dunn Way; and 1.1.3 Statutory apparatus and associated rights. 2. CROSSNESS NATURE RESERVE Proposed Compulsory Acquisition 2.1 TWUL is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the Planning Act 2008 by virtue of holding a water supply and sewerage licence under section 17A of the Water Industry Act 1991. 2.2 TWUL owns the plots listed in Table 1 over which the applicant proposes to acquire rights. Table 1 Sheet of Land Plans Plot No. as shown on the Land Plans 2 of 16 02/39, 02/40, 02/41, 02/42 3 of 16 03/01 This land forms part of the Crossness Nature Reserve. TWUL has a statutory duty under section 3 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”) in carrying out its functions to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora and fauna, and to have regard to the desirability of the public to have freedom of access to places of natural beauty. Related to this duty, the Secretary of State has issued guidance under section 5 of the 1991 Act in the form of a Code of Practice on Conservation Access and Recreation (February 2000). TWUL owns and operates the Crossness Nature Reserve consistent with and for the purposes of complying with these statutory duties. As such, it regards the Nature Reserve as land held for the purposes of its undertaking within the scope of section 127(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008. 2.3 TWUL has a separate statutory duty under section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to, “have regard so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of [its] functions, to the purposes of conserving biodiversity”. 2.4 Crossness Nature Reserve is one of the last remaining areas of grazing marsh land within the Greater London area and is an important part of the Erith Marshes Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation. It houses a variety of habitats including the largest reedbeds in the London Borough of Bexley, ponds and ditches and areas of scrub and grassland. It is also an important site for water voles and other protected species such as breeding barn owls and bats. For more information on the Crossness Nature Reserve, please visit: [redacted] 2.5 TWUL have invested a lot of time and money in enhancing the Crossness Nature Reserve over the last 20 plus years to the extent that it has become a valuable wildlife site and important community facility. Through the Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve scheme, TWUL offer a wide range of community events and open days, plus talks and guided walks to raise awareness of the environment. 2.6 The Nature Reserve has also received public funding and site enhancements through local authority-led initiatives such as: Managing the Marshes where the nature reserve received funding through the then ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), followed by the Belvedere Green Links project. 2.7 TWUL has been liaising with Cory Riverside Energy to review the impacts of the proposed Project on the Crossness Nature Reserve. However, the submitted scheme does not address TWUL’s concerns, as explained below. 2.8 The draft DCO contains provisions to acquire, in the respect of plots referred to in Table 1, new rights for the purposes of construction and installation of an electrical connection, as well as intrusive maintenance rights. For the purposes of sub-sections 127(5) and (6) of the Planning Act 2008, TWUL considers that the proposed acquisition of rights sought over these plots could potentially result in a serious detriment to the carrying on of its undertaking by virtue of the impact on its compliance with its statutory duties set out above. 2.9 Specifically, TWUL is concerned about the following: 2.9.1 Electric cable route through the nature reserve 2.9.1.1 TWUL object to the potential cabling route along the footpath across the Crossness Nature Reserve (Public Footpath 2 - put forward as one of options to supply/remove electricity). This option would require a significant footpath diversion for the Reserve’s visitors, severing the connection between Crossness Nature Reserve and Crossness Southern Marsh. Further, it would undermine the path improvement works that TWUL are scheduled to undertake. 2.9.1.2 There are Water Vole-populated ditches on both sides of this footpath, and there is not enough room to create the 5m buffer required to protect them. This would necessitate the trapping and translocating the water voles in order to lay cable. 2.9.1.3 The UK’s rarest bumblebee, the Shrill Carder Bee, has also been recorded along this footpath and it is possible that it nests in the tussocky vegetation on either side. 2.9.1.4 It is unclear if the path would need to be lit during cable-laying. TWUL would strongly object to this as it is a known bat commuting route and foraging corridor and lighting would be a significant negative impact. 2.10 The Guidance on the use of compulsory purchase powers in DCOs (DCLG September 2013) advises at paragraph 8 that: “The applicant should be able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition (including modifications to the scheme) have been explored. The applicant will also need to demonstrate that the proposed interference with the rights of those with an interest in the land is for a legitimate purpose, and that it is necessary and proportionate.” TWUL consider that Cory Riverside Energy has not demonstrated that it would be necessary to install the cable along the path through the centre of Crossness Nature Reserve. 2.11 TWUL strongly object to the use of the Crossness Nature Reserve for the use proposed due to the significant impacts on the Crossness Nature Reserve, as explained above. TWUL needs to be satisfied that any works to be carried out would not prejudice its undertaking and measures are included in the draft DCO to address these concerns. 2.12 In addition, and separate to the acquisition of rights and the undertaking of related works TWUL is concerned about the environmental impact of the Project upon Crossness Nature Reserve which may cause further issues on its ability to comply with its statutory functions as follows: 2.12.1 Disturbance to wildlife and visitors 2.12.1.1 The Project will sit immediately alongside the Crossness Nature Reserve. The Reserve is located directly to the west and south of the Project with the River Thames to the north. 2.12.1.2 The Crossness Nature Reserve’s Sea Wall Field is located to the west and more importantly, the West Paddock to the immediate south. The West Paddock is an artificially shallow-flooded area that TWUL manage for waders and wildfowl. It is considered to be the most interesting and wildlife-sensitive area of the Crossness Nature Reserve. It is used by breeding Lapwing in the spring/summer, as well as numerous overwintering wetland birds. TWUL have invested heavily in this area, shaping the land to create shallow pools, installing a wind-pump to control water levels, providing seasonal grazing to provide tussocky habitat. This will be significantly impacted, particularly during the construction phase of the Project, with the noise, dust and vehicle movement which will disturb the roosting wildlife that this area supports. 2.12.1.3 During the operational phase, the site traffic appears to be directed clock-wise along the southern boundary of the Project, which is essentially the top of this paddock and again is likely to disturb the wildlife interest. If the development were to be approved, there needs to be adequate screening to prevent this disturbance, but this should not be in the form of trees as this would simply provide more perches for avian predators. 2.12.2 Visual Intrusion 2.12.2.1 The Project will undermine the Crossness Nature Reserve, resulting in increasing urbanisation, loss of openness, reduced vistas and loss of the big-sky feel associated with marshes. This is particularly the case when you look at the cumulative impact of the Project, together with their already consented Data Storage Facilities on the Cory Fields to the south-east and the proposed laydown areas along Norman Road. Crossness Nature Reserve will become fragmented, which will affect its enjoyment by the Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve, the local community and users of the Thames Path. 2.12.2.2 The Project will have a significant impact on the openness of the adjacent Crossness Nature Reserve which is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and is therefore contrary to Policy 7.17 of the adopted London Plan and Policy CS17 of the adopted Bexley Core Strategy which state they will protect MOL land from inappropriate development. The London Plan gives MOL the same status as Green Belt and therefore the Project will not accord with the policy on Green Belts in the NPPF 2018 and in Section 5.10 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) as it will detrimentally impact on the openness of adjacent MOL. 2.12.3 Shading 2.12.3.1 Due to the height and proximity of the proposed development adjacent to Crossness Nature Reserve it is considered that it will have significant shading impacts. Water Vole-populated ditches will be shaded, and the shading could also alter the species composition botanically, particularly the rare Dittander which would be shaded by the data centres. 2.12.4 Lighting 2.12.4.1 The outline lighting strategy does refer to mitigation, but TWUL needs to be certain that there will be no light spill onto the Crossness Nature Reserve, which will effect habitant species such as barn owls and bats – for example, TWUL needs to be satisfied that there will be no all-night flood/security lighting; no blue-spectrum lighting which is known to negatively impact bats; there will be minimal white lighting which takes insects away from the dark areas where bats forage; lighting will be directed down and not out. 2.12.5 Air Quality 2.12.5.1 Air quality during the construction and operational stage is a concern, with increased levels of Nitrogen Oxide potentially affecting terrestrial biodiversity. 2.12.6 Biodiversity Offsetting 2.12.6.1 The application documents for the Project set out that loss of habitats will be compensated through re-creation where possible and a financial contribution to the Environment Bank with a legal agreement for contribution towards enhancement of habitats outside the Application Boundary. 2.12.6.2 As the application site is largely an existing hardstanding, it is likely the application will come up with a low biodiversity metric and therefore a low contribution to the Environment Bank. It is important that any such calculation fully takes into account the impacts on Crossness Nature Reserve outlined above. 3. LAND AT BOB DUNN WAY 3.1 The Book of Reference notes that TWUL owns the plots listed in Table 2 below. Table 2 Sheet of Land Plans Plot No. as shown on the Land Plans 13 of 16 13/02, 13/04, 13/05, 13/08, 13/09, 13/11, 13/13 13 of 16 13/12 This comprises TWUL operational land related to the Creekworks Sewage Pumping Station (South of Bob Dunn Way) together with retained operational land (North of Bob Dunn Way). It is therefore land held for the purposes of its undertaking for the purposes of section 127(1)(a) Planning Act 2008. 3.2 The draft DCO contains powers to acquire, in the respect of plots referred to in the first row of Table 2, new rights for the purposes of construction and installation of an electrical connection and, in relation to the plot referred to in the second row of Table 2, temporary possession for the use as a temporary construction compound, as well as intrusive maintenance rights. 3.3 Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991 places a statutory duty on sewerage undertakers to provide a sewerage system so as to ensure that that area is and continues to be effectively drained. The draft DCO and the Project potentially prevents TWUL from complying with its statutory duty if the function of this land when burdened with the rights sought is not effectively preserved. TWUL needs to be satisfied that any works to be carried out would not prejudice its undertaking and that measures are included in the draft DCO to address this concern. 4. STATUTORY APPARATUS 4.1 The draft DCO gives the Undertaker powers to carry out street works over streets where TWUL have existing apparatus, including, but not limited to, altering the layout of streets (Article 11) and the ability to break up or open the street; drill, tunnel or bore the street; place apparatus in the street; maintain apparatus in the street; and execute any works required for or incidental to any of these works (Article 10). Article 32 provides related powers to acquire TWUL’s rights and to relocate apparatus. 4.2 TWUL notes that the draft DCO includes protective provisions. These will be reviewed and TWUL will set out any additional requirements it may have. Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP ----------------------------------------------------------------- Please see attached "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Transport for London
"Transport for London (TfL) is the strategic transport authority for London. This written representation relates to TfL’s operational highway and public transport role. TfL has previously provided written advice to the Applicant on the scope of the Transport Assessment for the application on 18 May 2018, and further written advice on 26th October 2018. The application site, is accessed from Norman Road, which leads to the A2016 Bronze Age Way, part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) for which TfL has oversight responsibility. TfL regulates bus services in London, procures bus services and maintains bus infrastructure including bus stops and bus shelters. Local bus routes to the Proposed Development include the 180 and 401, which run within 650m of the Site, although the quality of the pedestrian routes between the Site and bus stops served by these routes is very poor. TfL considers the junction modelling contained within the ES to not be fully representative of the real capacities of the junctions assessed, as it is considered that the junctions are influenced by each other’s performance given that they are closely linked. However, given the robust trip generation forecast for the operational phase, TfL considers that the operational traffic impact of the proposed development is unlikely to result in a detrimental impact on the SRN. The use of the jetty for a majority of waste deliveries should be secured through the DCO and appropriate requirements should be put in place to deal with HGV traffic in the event of a jetty outage. This would be in line with the Draft London Plan Policy T2 – Healthy Streets, which aims to reduce dominance of cars on streets. The traffic impact of the construction of the REP is expected to be significant. TfL concludes that insufficient assessment has been undertaken to provide a realistic estimate of the impact of construction on the junctions along the SRN and therefore on bus services as well, and would therefore object to the current construction proposals. Additional modelling needs to be undertaken to show the impact of construction and mitigation measures must be secured through appropriate legal mechanisms to mitigate this impact. The impact of the Electrical Connection construction has not been sufficiently assessed through the TA or CTMP as currently the route has not been chosen, it is unclear how long construction of each section would take and therefore how long lanes would need to be closed and where they would need to be closed. The impact of the lane closures has not been assessed and therefore it cannot be determined if this impact is acceptable at this stage. However, given TfL’s understanding of the existing traffic congestion along the A2016, TfL have significant concerns which have not been alleviated. It is noted that TfL would prefer the Electrical Connection to be constructed away from the SRN, as this would reduce the potential for strategic traffic impacts. TfL opposes the development as set out above."