The London Resort

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

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

Preview
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting regarding the proposed London Resort
See meeting note attached

22 March 2019
London Resort Company Holdings - anon.
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

09 March 2018
London Resort Company Holdings
Enquiry received via email
The enquirer represented the Peninsula Management Group; the organisation that represents the 140 businesses on the Northfleet Industrial Estates.

The enquirer queried the accuracy of the anticipated submission dated provided on the National Infrastructure Planning website; whether the Inspectorate had any future meetings planned with London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH); and whether LRCH would be undertaking public consultations about any plans to carry out works to junctions on the A2.
As you are likely aware from the advice register on our website, we have had no substantive contact with LRCH since August 2017. A project update meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and LRCH is however scheduled in March 2018. As required, a note of the meeting will be published to our website shortly afterward.

The situation in respect of how the LRCH and Highways England schemes might interrelate is complex, and the Planning Inspectorate hopes to learn further how LRCH intends to progress in this regard at the March meeting. We will also expect an update in respect of LRCH’s Pre-application programme (ie timescales). If, as we currently understand, LRCH intends to include works to the A2 in its Development Consent Order, it will be required to consult on those works in its public consultation.

26 February 2018
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
As you are more than aware LRCH has now delayed the submission of its DCO Application for the The London Resort for a fourth time, further extending the uncertainties and potential disruption faced by local businesses, residents and communities, many of which are already treading on eggshells.

PMG, representing the 140 businesses on the Swanscombe Peninsular, has had some meetings with LRCH representatives and despite assurances that they want to work with us, it is now evident that they are pursuing a course through the Compulsory Acquisition route as LRCH currently has no funds to buy properties or relocate businesses. Thus, if the DCO Application is granted it could mean the extinguishment of many very successful, profitable and valuable businesses and the loss of thousands of full-time jobs, not to mention the impact on local communities.

Furthermore, LRCH and its sister businesses' financial credibility is open to question as they have yet again - for the third year running - failed to file annual accounts to Companies House on time, apart from for one dormant company. Surely the commercial NSIP process was not introduced to allow a near 'insolvent' business to undermine and kill-off many very successful smaller businesses.

I would welcome the DCLG's opinion on this situation and, in particular:

• Did DCLG undertake any financial checks on LRCH prior to granting NSIP status?
• Does PINS monitor applicants' financial credibility (accounts etc) during a DCO Application process?
• How long will DCLG allow an applicant to submit a potential commercial DCO Application before suggesting that any NSIP should be withdrawn if the timescales are constantly being deferred? Technically, I know there is no time limit but, in this case, I would be surprised if DCLG thought such applications could be used to undermine local businesses and communities. This is totally against the current Government's ethos and, if this commercial NSIP status is allowed to continue, will be a sign to any developer that there is potential to acquire land and property through this process irrespective of existing uses.

If you feel this matter is beyond your remit, I'd be grateful of you could forward it to the relevant contact within DCLG and the appropriate Minister. Many thanks for your time.
I apologise for the delay in replying to you. Two of your direct questions were matters for the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Having consulted my colleagues there, I will attempt to answer your questions:

1. DCLG is not required to undertake financial checks on applicants prior to making a direction that a project is nationally significant (where the project will be treated as development for which development consent is required). This is a matter which is explored during the examination of an application, please see below.

2. Any application for a development consent order must be accompanied by a statement to indicate how an order that contains the authorisation of compulsory acquisition is proposed to be funded. This is called a ‘funding statement’. The Secretary of State has published guidance which explains that this statement should provide as much information as possible about the resource implications of both acquiring the land and implementing the project for which the land is required.

You can find a copy of that guidance here: [attachment 1]

That funding statement, along with the remainder of the application documents, will be carefully considered by the examining authority if the application is accepted for examination; and the examining authority’s report will have regard to all relevant and important matters. If, having seen the funding statement, you wish to register to participate in the examination and make submissions to the examination on matters of funding, you are welcome to do so. Landowners identified by the applicant as affected by compulsory acquisition do not need to register in order to participate in the examination.

3. The Secretary of State took the view in issuing the direction on 9 May 2014 that this project is nationally significant for the reasons given in his letter, here: [attachment 2] Letter.pdf

The project is therefore considered to fall under the nationally significant infrastructure regime. Once a project has been directed into the regime in this way, it is for the applicant to take it forward to submit an application under the provisions of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). As you indicate, the Secretary of State’s direction letter sets no time limit for that to happen and there is no legislative requirement to do so.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me

16 November 2017
Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
We noted comments, in relation to London Resort, that DCO’s may now include Housing.
Can you tell us if Highways DCO’s are included in this change?
The guidance on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects and Housing published by the Department for Communities and Local Government in March 2017 states:

“The changes made by the 2016 Act allow development consent to be granted for housing related to any infrastructure project that requires development consent under the 2008 Act as long as the project is to be carried out in England, and/or in waters adjacent to England (up to the seaward limits of the territorial sea).”

The guidance can be found here: [attachment 1]

19 September 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
response has attachments
Tripartite meeting with London Resort and Highways England on 23 August 2017
A note of the meeting is attached

23 August 2017
Highways England and London Resort - anon.
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Presumably if we feel they have made no effort to engage with PMG, we can submit a summary case during the initial 28 day period as to why we believe the Application shouldn't be accepted? If it is accepted, then we can register as witnesses to present evidence and speak against it.
We have recently published a set of Frequently Asked Questions which contains information about what to do if you are not satisfied with a developer’s pre-application consultation - [attachment 1] . If an application were to be accepted, you would be able to register and become an “interested party”. Advice Note 8.3 - [attachment 2] - contains more information about that process.

07 August 2017
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
Can you say confirm that there were Meetings between PINS and LRCH on the following dates: -

22-Mar-17, 4-July-17 and 21-July-17 and Notes will be issued?

Shouldn’t LRCH re-apply for NSIP approval as the scheme now departs from the attached 9-May-14 Direction Letter?

Among changes to matters considered since it was issued are: -

The Direction describes the project as “LONDON PARAMOUNT”;
The license agreement between LRCH and Paramount ended 21-Jun-17. The project appears without International Media support.

The extent in the Direction is given as “SWANSCOMBE PENINSULAR AND LAND SOUTHWARDS TOWARDS EBBSFLEET STATION”
In March 2015 Ardent and now Savills, told occupants in 300 acres of Green Belt south of A296/A2 that LRCH want CA Powers.
The 10-Nov-15 Site Visit Notes show that the itinerary excluded viewing this land.

The Direction states that the development does not include the construction of any dwellings.
The 19-May-17 Meeting Notes say, “The Applicant is currently considering whether to include operational housing in the DCO …”.
This could impact on Green Belt land in Bean & Southfleet Parishes, enclosed in a red-line without any previously stated plans.
The 7-Oct-16 Notes say LRCH hope to “pull back” the red line boundary. Savills haven’t been told, as they continue cause stress.

The Direction says, “The Secretary of State also considers the substantial physical size of the proposal is relevant to his decision ….”
However, the 19-May-17 Notes of the “London Paramount project update meeting” show that everything is under review.
It is noted that there were no attendees from EDC, KCC, DBC or GBC.
I can confirm that there were meetings between The Planning Inspectorate and London Resort Company Holdings on 22 March 2017, 4 July 2017 and 21 July 2017. The meeting note for the 22 March 2017 meeting has now been published and I apologise for the delay in publication. The remaining notes will be published shortly.

At this stage, it is a matter for the developer to be satisfied that the project they intend to submit to the Planning Inspectorate is covered by the S35 direction and needs development consent.

One of the questions that The Planning Inspectorate has to consider at the acceptance stage is whether a proposed development is a nationally significant infrastructure project as defined in the Planning Act 2008 and this would include a consideration of the terms of any direction under s35 that an applicant is relying on.

02 August 2017
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

21 July 2017
Savills - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

04 July 2017
Savills - Chris Potts
response has attachments
Project update meeting
Please see attached meeting note

19 May 2017
Savills for London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via email
Query regarding the EIA regulations applicable to the project.
Please note that the Planning Inspectorate does not provide legal advice; it is the applicant’s responsibility to seek legal opinions from their own advisers. However I can confirm that the Planning Inspectorate will apply the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2009 to nationally significant infrastructure projects which have requested a scoping opinion in relation to those projects before the 2017 regulations come into force.

09 May 2017
London Resort Holdings - Karl Cradick
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see the attached meeting note

22 March 2017
London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting
see attached meeting note

07 October 2016
Savills for LRCH - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via email
Is an NSIP DCO Application transferable between companies prior to submission or would a new request for an NSIP Application, even though it is on the same site, have to be submitted?
The statutory consultation duties on the applicant at the pre application stage are transferable – we are concerned that they are undertaken by a person or organisation that proposes to make a viable NSIP application.

If there was any change to the “the applicant” during the pre-application stage the issue of project viability would be pertinent. The Secretary of State will want to make sure that the project can be implemented if it is granted development consent and that adequate funding is likely to be available, particularly where compulsory acquisition of land is needed.

In procedural terms, we would check this before formally accepting the application for examination – one of the checks is to the funding statement that is a required application document. If it was clear that the funding for the project was not adequately demonstrated then we would not accept it for examination. We would be asking questions about project viability before submission and providing advice to the new or existing applicant, potentially based on their draft DCO application documents if things had got that far.

Where a project has been directed by the Secretary of State to be a Business and Commercial NSIP, as a result of the scale and nature of the proposal, there may be other factors to consider.

04 August 2016
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
Ms Collins wrote on behalf of Bean RA to ask:
1. If the limits of the proposed development consent order included 100ha of Green Belt south of the A2;
2. If notes of meetings of the Ebbsfleet and Bean Junction Engagement Group were available;
3. If the actions from the meeting on 10th November 2015 with the applicant had been taken forward; and
4. If the anticipated date of submission on the PINS website was correct, given media reports of a 2017 submission date.
PINS advised:
1. That we do not know whether the area south of the A2 is currently proposed to be included in the application, and this question is best directed to the promotor;
2. That we are not participants in the Ebbsfleet and Bean Junction Engagement Group, and so this question is best directed to the promotor;
3. That we have not seen an outline programme of the high-level meetings held with consultees, and that the meeting held on 31 March 2016 is the only meeting which we have attended since the meeting on 10th November 2015 in connection with the project;
4. That the anticipated submission date on the website will be updated if the promotor provides a revised submission date.
We invited Ms Collins to contact us in connection with any other questions about the Development Consent process; but since the promotor is still forming the detail of their proposal, we advised that it is best to send them any comments or questions about the proposed resort.

01 April 2016
Bean Residents Assocation - Linda Collins
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Update on London Paramount Resort project with London Resort Company Holdings and relevant authorities

31 March 2016
London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH)
Enquiry received via email
Mr Bramwell wrote on behalf of the Peninsula Management Group to introduce the group and ask the following questions:

1. Is the Applicant supposed to have engaged with all local landowners prior to submission of the DCO to demonstrate it has control of the land or can this happen when the DCO is being considered or granted?

2. If the Applicant fails to engage with local landowners/businesses and is relying on the CPO process to acquire the land, is this a material matter for consideration within the DCO process?
PINS provided advice as follows:

1. The applicant is expected (indeed, required) to have consulted everyone whom, following diligent inquiry, they have identified as having an interest in the land over which they are seeking CA powers. The Planning Act sets out a definition of who these people/interests will likely be at section 44. So in respect of your question, this is not necessarily all local landowners, since the interests of landowners neighbouring the proposed site may not be affected by the proposed CA powers. Applicants are required to demonstrate that they have carried out this consultation, and have had regard to any responses received (section 49 of the Planning Act); but they are not required to demonstrate that negotiations have been successful or that they already have control of the land prior to submission. It is not necessary for the applicant to have control of the land in order to be granted consent; this is why it is possible to apply for CA powers.

2. The examination of any application will include an examination of any CA powers that are sought in that application, and will consider all matters that the Inspector or Inspectors acting as the Examining Authority consider to be relevant and important. Once an application is accepted for examination, parties identified as having an interest in land proposed to be subject to CA will be invited to participate in the examination of the application, and will be given a full opportunity to put their case to the Examining Authority. Their views will be carefully considered when a report is made to the Secretary of State; and that report will not recommend the grant of CA powers unless there is shown to be a compelling case in the public interest for them.

10 December 2015
Peninsula Management Group - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A site visit took place on the proposed site of the London Parmount scheme followed by a meeting at the offices of Gravesham Borough Council, attended by several parties.
An agreed note of that meeting is attached.

10 December 2015
Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
A meeting was held between London Paramout (London Resort Company Holdings) and the Planning Inspectorate in Temple Quay House.
An agreed note of that meeting is attached.

29 September 2015
Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
An update on the progress of the London Paramount project to date was held with LRCH and local councils.
A note of that meeting is attached.

17 July 2015
London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to update the Inspectorate and local authorities about the progress of the London Paramount project
see attached note

26 March 2015
London Resort Company Holdings - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
The Planning Inspectorate gave presentations to local residents and others at the Bean Community Hall and at the Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council Offices about the 2008 Act planning process for nationally significant schemes.
A copy of the presentation is attached.

02 March 2015
Members of the Public and others - Linda Collins
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
The description of the project boundary in the Secretary of State's Direction letter differs from the indicative project boundary being promoterd by the developer. The developer's indicative project boudary extends further south and includes land around the A2(T) Ebbsfleet Junction, along the A2 (T) to the Junctions either side at Bean and Pepperhill, all of which are in the Green Belt.

Can you confirm that the description in the NSIP Direction Letter has not been changed and that Works to the A2(T) remain the responsibility of the Highways Agency, who we have been in discussion with about alterations to Bean Interchange since Bluewater Regional Shopping Centre opened in 1999.
The Secretary of State?s letter of 9 May 2014 directed that the London Paramount project should be designated as a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP) and therefore an application should be made for development consent. The detailed boundary of the proposed London Paramount site was not prescribed by the Direction because its purpose was to prescribe the status of the project as a NSIP and therefore the way in which it would be dealt with (a development consent order rather than planning applications to the local authorities).

It is important to note that the London Paramount project is entirely separate from proposals by the Secretary of State to establish an Urban Development Corporation at Ebbsfleet. The Government?s conclusion on the extent of the development corporation were set out in its response to consultation published in December 2014 [attachment 1]

With regard to the detailed boundary of the London Paramount site, the applicant (LRHC) is currently undertaking informal pre application consultation with communities and technical consultees. LRHC have indicated to us that they will hold a formal consultation event in advance of submitting their application to the Planning Inspectorate. The purpose of the statutory pre application stage is to allow the developer to consult on their proposals so that they can be shaped with the input of communities and others before being finalised and submitted as an application. In this context we would not necessarily expect the boundary of the site to be fixed at the pre application stage, beyond showing the general extent and location of the project.

I understand from the meeting we had with LRHC and the Highways Agency that discussions are on-going about the access arrangements to the Paramount site from the A2(T). One of the features of the development consent process is that a developer can make an application for more than one NSIP in a single application. My understanding is that the A2(T) junction works for the Paramount project are currently included in LRHC?s Paramount project. The Highways Agency also has plans for the A2(T) which are separate to the Paramount proposals and would be brought forward in the event that the Paramount project doesn?t proceed.

In terms of the DCO application, one of the required documents will be an Environmental Statement (ES). Our recent scoping opinion published in December 2014 refers to transport and access as a topic to be covered in the ES. Any assessment of traffic impacts will need to consider the cumulative impacts of the development proposed along with other relevant and reasonably foreseeable developments in the area. The detailed design of the junction and access arrangements to the Paramount site must be considered with that context in mind.

Going forward, I would advise you and any concerned residents to take part in the pre-application consultation events being run by LRHC to find out more information about the London Paramount project (including the road proposals), and to put forward views about the project directly to them.

09 February 2015
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project update meeting.

14 January 2015
London Resort Holdings Company London Paramount Project
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
1. Who is responsible for notifying the deposit of documents and the deadline for comments?
2. Is there a procedure for registering interest during the current pre-submission stage?
3. When do we get an opportunity to formally register that we are an interested party?
1. During the formal pre application consultation stage the applicant is responsible for advertising any deadlines, exhibitions and events in accordance with their Statement of Community Consultation (SoCC). My understanding is that the applicant is currently undertaking informal consultation at the present time and is working with Dartford BC, Gravesham BC and Kent CC to develop their SoCC. Once adopted the SoCC (or a summary of it) will be published in a local newspaper(s) for 2 consecutive weeks. The full SoCC is likely to be posted on the developers web site and I expect the local Council?s will also publish it on their respective websites too. The SoCC will set down the applicant?s consultation methodology and key events such as exhibitions and deadlines.

Post submission, if the application is accepted by us to proceed to examination then the applicant will advertise this in a local newspaper(s) for 2 consecutive weeks, providing details of how to register with the Inspectorate to become an interested party (for the purposes of the examination) and where to view the application documents. Thereafter, the Planning Inspectorate will be responsible for notifying interested parties about procedural decisions including deadlines for the receipt of written representations and the date, time and place of any hearings.

2. The applicant has a website where you can register to be kept up to date via email about their consultation activity during the pre-submission stage: [attachment 1] For more information about this service please contact the applicant directly; we are not responsible for the content of their website or their registration service, which is being provided on a non statutory basis as part of their general pre application consultation activity.

3. The formal interested party registration will be advertised as set out above only after the application is accepted by the Inspectorate. The applicant will set the formal registration period which must be at least 28 calendar days. Those who want to register must complete a relevant representation form in which they will be required to provide their preferred contact details and provide their comments on the submitted application. Later in the examination there will be other opportunities to provide written representations. Registering to become an interested party is the only way to guarantee your participation in the examination of the application. We encourage individuals with common interests and concerns to work together as part of a group, such as a campaign group, residents association or through a Parish Council. This will be a large application with a lot of documentation and so it will be easier to share the burden of reading and commenting on the application (in writing and verbally at hearings).

05 January 2015
Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter to the Planning Inspectorate from Matthew Girt on behalf of the Diocese of Rochester.
Please see attached response from the Planning Inspectorate to the Diocese of Rochester.

18 December 2014
Diocese of Rochester
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Meeting to update and discuss progress on the London Paramount Resort Business / Commercial NSIP project.

11 December 2014
London Paramount Project London Resort Company Holdings
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
see attached meeting note
see attached meeting note

14 October 2014
Chris Potts
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
see attached meeting note
see attached meeting note

04 September 2014
Savills - Chris Potts
Enquiry received via post
response has attachments
Please see attached letter from Adam Holloway MP to Baroness Kramer - Minister of State for Transport
Please see attached joint repsonse from the Planning Inspectorate and the Department for Communities and Local Government

02 September 2014
Adam Holloway MP
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note

09 December 2013
London Resort Company Holdings
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Please see attached meeting note

07 October 2013
London Resort Company Holdings