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 email
response has attachments
Dear team, I have recently been contacted by my constituent, Mr Daniel Harwood, regarding a proposed development at Swanscombe Marshes. Mr Harwood is concerned that about the impact this could have on both the local environment. He states that he is further concerned about the amount of scrutiny in national government of major developments, such as the Swanscombe Development, which he believes will adversely affect the environment, I would be grateful if you could look into this matter on their behalf and respond to their concerns. I look forward to hearing from you. Yours sincerely, Helen Sent on behalf of Helen Hayes MP Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood
Dear Mr Harwood, We have been forwarded your details by Helen Hayes MP in relation to your concerns regarding the proposed London Resort project (formally known as London Paramount). The proposed application by London Resort Company Holdings (the Applicant) is at the Pre-application stage of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008) process. The Planning Inspectorate (the Inspectorate) is unable to consider representations about the merits of any application until it is accepted for Examination. The Inspectorate also does not have the power to intervene in an Applicant’s pre-application programme. The process for applying for a Development Consent Order (DCO) is set out in the PA2008. The timing of the application’s programme is at the discretion of the Applicant. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July - 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: [attachment 1] You can call the Applicant on: 0800 470 0043, or write to them at: FREEPOST: LONDON RESORT CONSULTATION The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report which is part of their DCO application. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. Should the DCO application be accepted by the Inspectorate for examination, the Applicant has a duty to notify the local community when providing information on how to register as an Interested Party for the purpose of the process. The process under the PA2008 has been designed to allow members of the public and statutory stakeholders to participate in examination of all DCO applications so that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any relevant matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. Once the examination begins, the Examining Authority will assess all information submitted in the application documents and will consider whether the Applicant has provided the necessary level of information. The Inspectorate has produced several Advice Notes to help provide an overview of the PA2008 process and the opportunities to get involved. They are available at the following link: [attachment 2] The following are particularly relevant: Advice Note 8: ‘Overview of the nationally significant infrastructure planning process for members of the public and others’. Advice Note 8.1: ‘Responding to the developer’s pre-application consultation’ Advice Note 8.2: ‘How to register to participate in an Examination’. Please be assured that anyone interested in the proposed developments, their potential impacts and any planning matters can be fully engaged in the examination process. A copy of your correspondence has been placed on our records and will be presented to the Inspector at acceptance together with the application documents and Local Authorities’ comments on the Applicant’s consultation. Regarding your concerns on scrutiny in national government of major developments; National Policy Statements (NPSs) are produced by government. They give reasons for the policy set out in the statement and must include an explanation of how the policy takes account of government policy relating to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. They comprise the government’s objectives for the development of nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs). The Inspectorate is impartial and does not comment on government policy. However, Examining Authorities do make their recommendations within the framework provided by NPSs, as required by the Planning Act 2008. At this time, there is no specific NPS for Business and Commercial NSIPs. The Applicant has acknowledged this in their scoping report. They have identified the National Planning Policy Framework and the local plans prepared by the relevant planning authorities in the area affected by the proposed development. In addition, the National Networks NPS (NPS EN-1) and the NPS for Ports (NPSP) have been identified as being relevant to the proposed development. With regard to the current Coronavirus (COVID-19) situation, please refer to the Planning Inspectorate’s published guidance which will be updated as the situation develops. [attachment 3] We have also published a Frequently Asked Questions document regarding Pre-application consultation and this can be viewed on our website here: [attachment 4] Please note, in accordance with Section 51 of the PA2008, a summary of your query and our advice will be published on the project’s webpage of the National Infrastructure Website.

21 September 2020
Mr Daniel Harwood - Helen Hayes MP
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please find attached a note in response to your letter, dated 23rd July, which you might like to share with your Chief Executive. I apologise for the length but as you will see a large portion of it is an extract from LRCH's latest Scoping Opinion. I think it is important that this is placed 'on the record' as it is very evident that the Applicant has been less than honest with The Inspectorate and its Officers, MHCLG and the taxpayer! The only section I would like a response to is the last paragraph as many people cannot understand why this was not included in your Scoping Opinion when it was so evident in the various responses. I am extremely grateful for the time you have taken to deal with this enquiry but I think the one lesson that has to be learnt from this 'commercial NSIP' is that the facts have to be true and not made up as the Applicant goes along.
Thank you for your email of 7 August 2020 regarding the application by London Resort Company Holdings Limited for an order granting development consent for the London Resort Project, specifically in relation to the Planning Inspectorate’s letter of 23 July 2020 in response to your email of 15 July 2020. We value your comments in explaining the relationship between Peninsula Management Group (PMG) and parties potentially affected by the proposed development and that PMG has no legal and professional advice concerning land acquisition and the compulsory acquisition process. In relation to your comment on the Secretary of State direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 (PA2008), can you please provide clarity as to which meeting note/s express that the project would meet ‘NSIP criteria in terms of economic regeneration, cross-council boundary issues etc’. We are unable to find this specific advice in any of the meeting notes published under s51 of PA2008. In relation to your comments on participation in the scoping process, we reiterate our position that the scoping opinion adopted by the Inspectorate on behalf of the Secretary of State is formed on the basis of information provided by the Applicant. The Applicant has a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses received and this should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. However, if you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to raise these with your local authority, Dartford Borough Council and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments should be taken into account when the local authority sends the Inspectorate its comments on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties. The local authority’s comments on the Applicant’s consultation will be taken into account when the Acceptance Inspector makes their decision whether to accept the application for Examination. In relation to your comments on the land required for the project, the applicant has revised their project site boundary throughout the pre-application process. The applicant has launched the statutory consultation phase of their project. Earlier rounds on non-statutory consultation are used by the applicant to help inform the final project; the statutory consultation exercise should be considered as the official consultation in regard to any submitted application for a Development Consent Order. This statutory consultation exercise is taking place between 27 July – 21 September 2020. All parties that wish to put their views to the applicant are strongly advised to do so at this opportunity. Further information and documentation can be found on the applicants website: [attachment 1] The site meeting that took place on 10 November 2015, which included viewing the Manor Way Industrial Estate is documented in a meeting note: [attachment 2];ipcadvice=e4922a0577 No specific information is included in this meeting note in regard to the industrial estate and we cannot speculate as to any discussion that may have taken place between parties. As there is no documented evidence of questions being asked about the impact on the businesses, then we must conclude that none were asked. In determining if the application is of a sufficient standard to be accepted for examination, the Inspectorate can only make a decision on the final application submitted. In response to your query on the content of the Scoping Opinion, it should be noted that section 7 of the Scoping Report does describe the displacement of existing businesses and jobs as a matter that would be included in the assessment of socio-economic effects resulting from the Proposed Development. The Inspectorate’s advice (see section 4.1 of the Scoping Opinion, items 4.12 and 4.13) requested clarity regarding the study area and receptors to be included in the socio-economic assessment. This encompasses all the receptors likely to experience significant socio-economic effects. The Applicant was also advised to agree the receptors with the relevant consultation bodies, which would include the local authorities and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation.

10 September 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

28 July 2020
on behalf of Bean Residents Association - Linda Collins
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
FOA: Sarah Richards, Chief Executive, The Planning Inspectorate In the absence of an e-mail address, I should be grateful if you could forward the following e-mail to The Chief Executive and please confirm receipt. Many thanks. Dear Secretary I am writing to you in your capacity as Secretary MHCLG and apologise for using your MP address but there is no other evident way to contact you. I have very grave concerns about many aspects of the above project, some of which have already been stated in correspondence to The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers and others which are becoming evident by the day. I am extremely disappointed with all the responses I am receiving as none of The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers are taking any notice of them and are literally 'running scared' of what is being said. They are not posting s51 advice on the website and not responding to serious claims made by e-mail. Hence I have to raise these issues to the most senior level as investigative journalists are already phoning me about what appears to be 'an insider job' project and another political scandal. I have lodged an FoI request with The Planning Inspectorate concerning the initial Direction Letter categorising the project as an NSIP and various matters about the Applicant's first EIA Scoping Report, lodged November 2014. I have also asked whether or not representatives from The Inspectorate visited the proposed site to assess the veracity of the material contained therein. I am awaiting responses. Whether they did or not, they will notice that the Scoping Report and, more importantly, the Applicant's second EIA Scoping Report, submitted 17th June 2020, are both totally inaccurate and deceptive to say the least. In fact the Applicant has almost intentionally tried to avoid admitting that there are major industrial estates on part of the site which could mean the elimination of approx 140 businesses with over 1,500 jobs without much prospect of them being relocated nearby. Furthermore, I have raised this matter on many occasions with The Inspectorate as the Applicant has failed to engage fully with these businesses, the last 'constructive' meeting being OVER TWO YEARS AGO but they have failed to respond to many questions since then. More importantly, I have advised your Officer (Helen Lancaster) of these serious errors and am advised I have no right to comment on the Scoping Report - A SERIOUS PROCESS ERROR if landowners are not allowed to rectify such 'untruths'. I must request that in the interests of these businesses, the truth and full facts must be addressed urgently and immediately to prevent any further waste of civil servant time and taxpayer funds. If the Applicant can't disclose the truth to The Planning Inspectorate their credibility to front such a project must be challenged, especially as they have no funds and, according to various official and published sources, they are not to be trusted financially!
Please see attached.

23 July 2020
Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
Helen Many thanks for your e-mail. You are obviously not as familiar with LRCH and its team as I am. For two years I have been asking them for information, responses to e-mails and update meetings but no reply! Then suddenly last week they wanted everybody to attend a Zoom meeting call with just 48 hours notice but most couldn't manage it as they were already in meetings, abroad on business or otherwise unavailable. However, these issues were raised during the meeting: • Why weren't the Estates included in the Scoping Report? They didn't know why not and couldn't answer the reasons on why the Estates were not included within the application submission back in 2014 because they didn't work there! They did say they are amending the Report and re-submitting it - not good enough! They need to do the total site assessment exercise again....and they are not aware of the horrific contamination and other issues already existing on the site • During the Zoom call they also told us that the site could well be sold on to another developer if they are successful with the DCO Application but they can't guarantee any Option agreements if any were to be agreed and hence the PMG businesses and landowners are facing even further uncertainty . Unfortunately, all of this is impacting on businesses, already struggling after eight years of their dithering and also having to cope with the effects of the virus, HS1, Brexit etc. I would have hoped that The Planning Inspectorate would be an effective independent organisation capable of ensuring that all parties concerns are addressed so that the Applicant is given robust and constructive advice to progress their application. I understand your hands are tied so time to change the system and expose its flaws. Many thanks and please publish this as a formal response to the 's51 advice' - people must get the full story. I live in Bristol and as stated many times previously am more than willing to attend any meeting if it would be advantageous. Best wishes Dan
Dear Mr Bramwell Thank you for your email addressed to my colleague in the Environmental Services Team. Please note during the pre-application stage, the Inspectorate is not required to publish any responses it receives to s51 advice unless further s51 advice is given to that response. Therefore, as previously advised, please continue to direct your concerns directly to the Applicant and where you are not satisfied, to raise your concerns with the local authority. In the meantime, the Inspectorate will continue to encourage the Applicant to engage with parties throughout its pre-application stage and should the application be accepted for examination, you will be provided with an opportunity to register as an Interested Party. Apologies this email was in reply to the below, I will reply to your later emails in due course. Kind regards Liam London Resort Case Team

22 July 2020
Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

21 July 2020
on behalf of Swanscombe & Greenhithe Town Council - Graham Blew
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
Please see attached
Please see attached

13 July 2020
on behalf of Buglife - Jamie Robins
response has attachments
Received: 1 July 2020 I refer back to your e-mail to me of 9th March 2020. There is one general point I wish to raise with you and some specific issues which it is essential are noted on the application case file and The Planning Inspectorate must consider. I registered to receive updates on this project from The Planning Inspectorate on 17th June 2017 but for some reason your system is failing to advise me when new documents are added to the website project file. Luckily I check the website regularly so am able to pick up any important additions such as the EIA Scoping Reports! Reference these reports, I trust you realise and pick-up on the flaws within them. Issues I wish to raise and upon which I expect the The Planning Inspectorate to revert to the Applicant are: SITE SELECTION I refer to the Applicant's Scoping Report Table 4.1 on Page 38. This is severely flawed as under the 'Swanscombe, North Kent' entry it states that both 'Land Use' and 'Regeneration & Economic Benefits' are positive. A significantly important element of this land (approx 40 acres at entrance to site) is not readily available for development as it is the home to approx 140 businesses, employing circa 1,000-1,500 employees with many offsite businesses also reliant on trading with them. The Applicant has failed to include this in their assessment (see also below - Estates). There were plans afoot by some of the existing landowners to invest in the estates but because of all the uncertainty these had to be put on hold. This would have significantly increased the local employment base so to claim it is suitable for regeneration with economic benefits is not accurate. ESTATES The Planning Inspectorate has been aware of these industrial estates (Northfleet Industrial, Manor Way, Kent Kraft and Rod End) for some years. However, when the Applicant applied for NSIP status for the project, to the best off my knowledge, no mention was made of them and the likely impact on the businesses. Furthermore, the fourth public consultation exercise undertaken by LRCH failed to include them but they were re-instated into their plans AFTER the consultation exercise was completed. It is interesting to note that the Applicant is at last confirming they have every intention of using the CPO process to take control of the required land, despite their then Chief Executive re-assuring the businesses at a meeting with them on 12th June 2017 that they would only use the CPO process as a last resort. There has been a draft document circulated by LRCH suggesting an option agreement but this will mean many businesses/landowners losing large sums of money, is riddled with flaws and, despite it being circulated TWO years ago, LRCH has yet to respond to any comments made by the businesses. The ultimate consequences of this ineptitude is that many businesses won't survive having already gone through the effects of HS1, Brexit, Coronavirus and now this! ENGAGEMENT The last constructive engagement between LRCH and the businesses was two years ago although some communication has been received in recent days. Over this time, PMG, representing the businesses, has sent endless e-mails to LRCH requesting responses to comments made on their offer, meetings, project updates etc but there has NEVER been any response. Thus in your e-mail to me dated 9th March you say ask the Applicant - how can one ask an Applicant if they are refusing to engage with parties impacted by their ill-thought out plans? Furthermore, LRCH has been constantly advised that it needs to engage with the individual businesses who have been affected by the implications of The London Resort project, many for eight years and more since the project was first suggested. Over this time the businesses have suffered blight, impacted trading, trouble raising finance for trading due to the uncertainties and some landowners have lost out on significant business deals which could have created thousands of additional jobs. Other businesses have already left due to the uncertainties. If LRCH was really serious about acquiring the site it has had ample opportunities to purchase elements of the estates - and make money to cover their investments. It has been made abundantly clear to LRCH that PMG does not represent the businesses but is in existence to give them guidance. It is up to LRCH to identify all the businesses and landowners and PMG has offered its support. However, LRCH has to date asked Argent, Savills and now Land Referencing Services (LRS) to undertake the compilation of a business and landowners register, only then will they be able to start any sort of negotiations. Again little has happened to date! This must be completed before any further progress can be made with the DCO Application or the Applicant has failed to undertake basic engagement/consultation activities. SUMMARY In the absence of any meaningful direct engagement with the Applicant, I hope The Planning Inspectorate will take onboard the above comments on behalf of PMG to ensure the businesses, employees, communities and the taxpayer is fully represented in consideration of the Applicant's performance and in responding to the EIA Scoping Report. Received: 6 July 2020 I must express my disappointment that there has been no acknowledgement of my e-mail of last week, as below, and it has not yet been posted to The Planning Inspectorate (NSIP) website as requested. Please can you acknowledge receipt as a matter of urgency. I should also be grateful if you can confirm that the EIA Scoping Reports published online for the above project are the final copies for consideration by all parties. I have to advise my Clients as to whether it is justified to consider a formal review of the process as the inclusion of the Industrial Estates was not included in the initial application for NSIP status to the then Secretary of State and is still missing in these latest Reports, a major omission that cannot have gone unnoticed by The Planning Inspectorate. I request an immediate response to this matter.
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the version of the Scoping Report published on our website is the final version. However, we will not be able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion since the list of consultees is largely prescribed by law. Our Advice Note 3 ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ provides more information and is available at this link: [attachment 1] We advise you to consult the developer directly about your concerns.

07 July 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via email
response has attachments
I refer back to your e-mail to me of 9th March 2020. There is one general point I wish to raise with you and some specific issues which it is essential are noted on the application case file and The Planning Inspectorate must consider. I registered to receive updates on this project from The Planning Inspectorate on 17th June 2017 but for some reason your system is failing to advise me when new documents are added to the website project file. Luckily I check the website regularly so am able to pick up any important additions such as the EIA Scoping Reports! Reference these reports, I trust you realise and pick-up on the flaws within them. Issues I wish to raise and upon which I expect the The Planning Inspectorate to revert to the Applicant are: SITE SELECTION I refer to the Applicant's Scoping Report Table 4.1 on Page 38. This is severely flawed as under the 'Swanscombe, North Kent' entry it states that both 'Land Use' and 'Regeneration & Economic Benefits' are positive. A significantly important element of this land (approx 40 acres at entrance to site) is not readily available for development as it is the home to approx 140 businesses, employing circa 1,000-1,500 employees with many offsite businesses also reliant on trading with them. The Applicant has failed to include this in their assessment (see also below - Estates). There were plans afoot by some of the existing landowners to invest in the estates but because of all the uncertainty these had to be put on hold. This would have significantly increased the local employment base so to claim it is suitable for regeneration with economic benefits is not accurate. ESTATES The Planning Inspectorate has been aware of these industrial estates (Northfleet Industrial, Manor Way, Kent Kraft and Rod End) for some years. However, when the Applicant applied for NSIP status for the project, to the best off my knowledge, no mention was made of them and the likely impact on the businesses. Furthermore, the fourth public consultation exercise undertaken by LRCH failed to include them but they were re-instated into their plans AFTER the consultation exercise was completed. It is interesting to note that the Applicant is at last confirming they have every intention of using the CPO process to take control of the required land, despite their then Chief Executive re-assuring the businesses at a meeting with them on 12th June 2017 that they would only use the CPO process as a last resort. There has been a draft document circulated by LRCH suggesting an option agreement but this will mean many businesses/landowners losing large sums of money, is riddled with flaws and, despite it being circulated TWO years ago, LRCH has yet to respond to any comments made by the businesses. The ultimate consequences of this ineptitude is that many businesses won't survive having already gone through the effects of HS1, Brexit, Coronavirus and now this! ENGAGEMENT The last constructive engagement between LRCH and the businesses was two years ago although some communication has been received in recent days. Over this time, PMG, representing the businesses, has sent endless e-mails to LRCH requesting responses to comments made on their offer, meetings, project updates etc but there has NEVER been any response. Thus in your e-mail to me dated 9th March you say ask the Applicant - how can one ask an Applicant if they are refusing to engage with parties impacted by their ill-thought out plans? Furthermore, LRCH has been constantly advised that it needs to engage with the individual businesses who have been affected by the implications of The London Resort project, many for eight years and more since the project was first suggested. Over this time the businesses have suffered blight, impacted trading, trouble raising finance for trading due to the uncertainties and some landowners have lost out on significant business deals which could have created thousands of additional jobs. Other businesses have already left due to the uncertainties. If LRCH was really serious about acquiring the site it has had ample opportunities to purchase elements of the estates - and make money to cover their investments. It has been made abundantly clear to LRCH that PMG does not represent the businesses but is in existence to give them guidance. It is up to LRCH to identify all the businesses and landowners and PMG has offered its support. However, LRCH has to date asked Argent, Savills and now Land Referencing Services (LRS) to undertake the compilation of a business and landowners register, only then will they be able to start any sort of negotiations. Again little has happened to date! This must be completed before any further progress can be made with the DCO Application or the Applicant has failed to undertake basic engagement/consultation activities. SUMMARY In the absence of any meaningful direct engagement with the Applicant, I hope The Planning Inspectorate will take onboard the above comments on behalf of PMG to ensure the businesses, employees, communities and the taxpayer is fully represented in consideration of the Applicant's performance and in responding to the EIA Scoping Report. I must express my disappointment that there has been no acknowledgement of my e-mail of last week, as below, and it has not yet been posted to The Planning Inspectorate (NSIP) website as requested. Please can you acknowledge receipt as a matter of urgency. I should also be grateful if you can confirm that the EIA Scoping Reports published online for the above project are the final copies for consideration by all parties. I have to advise my Clients as to whether it is justified to consider a formal review of the process as the inclusion of the Industrial Estates was not included in the initial application for NSIP status to the then Secretary of State and is still missing in these latest Reports, a major omission that cannot have gone unnoticed by The Planning Inspectorate.
Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that the version of the Scoping Report published on our website is the final version. However, we will not be able to take your comments into account in the Scoping Opinion since the list of consultees is largely prescribed by law. Our Advice Note 3 ‘EIA Notification and Consultation’ provides more information and is available at this link: [attachment 1] We advise you to consult the developer directly about your concerns.

07 July 2020
Bramwell Associates - anon.
response has attachments
The London Resort Company has informed me the development of (Paramount Park & Hotels) is a part of National Infrastructure Project supported by the UK Government as this would highly benefit tourism industry in UK. I am sure any amusement parks like the one of Disney, in Paris or Orlando & Sunway in Malaysia has boosted tourism. I did look up the link on your website for London Resort also showing negligible current update. The reason I write to you is because I am concerned about how the London Resort Co has started investment schemes on the bases of the above development. They are pre-selling the hotel rooms. That means I am able to buy one room in the hotel (to be constructed in 3 years) and get guaranteed rental returns of 8% post constructed for the next 3 years., thereafter returns will be un-guaranteed for the next 27 years. However the hotel room is owned by investor for 995 years. To buy the hotel room I need to invest 20% now, 20% when construction begins Jun 2021, 10% Dec 2021 and 50% Dec 2023. The cost of each hotel room is Pound 40,000. This seems quite attractive, hence several would want to invest from INDIA. However I feel something fishy and need some update on the status of permission hence I write to you. Hope its not a big scam. Why you reply benefits me ? I am a realtor and planning to market this project. I do not want to market anything which is a fraud. Hence kindly provide non-bias opinion. Be rest assured your reply will be strictly confidential and will not be used or presented to anyone, it will only help me to decide if this project is right for me to market or not.
The London Resort project is currently in the Pre-Application stage of the development consent process, which means that the Applicant has not yet formally submitted their application to us (the Planning Inspectorate). We currently anticipate that the application will be submitted later this year. You may wish to view our Advice Note which provides an overview of the Planning Act 2008 process. This confirms that the statutory timescales between the Examination commencing and a decision being made on the application is 12 months. We advise that you can sign up to receive updates on this project as it progresses via our webpage: [attachment 1] - the email notification sign-up facility is to the right hand side of the page, halfway down. Unfortunately, we are unable to offer any advice to you in relation to potential purchase of property; this is a matter which is outside of our remit and to do so could pre-judge the outcome of the application. You should seek your own professional advice on this matter.

28 May 2020
Manish Chheda
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

06 April 2020
London Resort Company Holdings
Enquiry received via email
Dear Sirs Many thanks for your e-mail dated Monday, 10th February. I note under 'COMPULSORY ACQUISITION' it is stated: "The Applicant explained that the company’s in the nearby industrial estate have all banded together and are now represented by a professional adviser." I must stress that this is a totally inaccurate statement and, subject to their own decisions, each business will be individually represented by professional advisers. Furthermore I should stress there are four separate industrial estates, all in separate single or multi party ownership, along with infrastructure and other land holdings which are also in separate ownership. I also note that in the project overview it states: "The application is expected to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate Q4 2020.". However, in the meeting minutes final paragraph it refers to DCO submission in Q2 2020 - which is correct? I should also be grateful if you could forward me a list of those people who attended the meeting. Finally, the last occasion on which the businesses had any communication or contact from LRCH, applicants for The London Resort Project, was in July 2018. Best wishes Dan Bramwell On behalf of PMG
Dear Mr Bramwell, Thank you for your email in relation to the note of the meeting held between the Planning Inspectorate’s (the Inspectorate) and the London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) (the Applicant) on 8 October 2019. The information on the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) progress was provided by the Applicant and whilst we are able to highlight any concerns raised with us to Applicants, it is not for the Inspectorate to examine the CA during the pre-application stage of the project. Once an Application is submitted for a Development Consent Order (DCO), if accepted for Examination, the appointed Examining Authority will assess the information and ensure that the relevant tests are met to allow the Applicant to obtain any land for the development. The submission date given in the meeting note (Q2 2020) was correct at the time of the meeting. The Applicant has subsequently updated the Inspectorate on the intended submission date, which they have now advised will be Q4 2020. It is not uncommon for Applicants to change the estimated submission date throughout the pre-application stage due to a host of factors. When the Inspectorate is provided with an updated submission date, it is reflected on the project webpage. Please note we no longer publish a list of attendees in meeting notes (for Inspectorate staff or other attendees). Our use and disclosure of personal information is governed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018. Please see the Inspectorate’s privacy notice for further details on how we process personal data. The Applicant may be inclined to divulge which parties attended the meeting from their team, but it is not for the Inspectorate to provide this information. As the project is still in the pre-application stage, I would strongly encourage you to continue to contact the Applicant directly with regard to your concerns as they have a statutory duty to have regard to all consultation responses which should be demonstrated in the Consultation Report as part of their DCO application. If you feel your comments are not being taken into account, I would advise you to also write to your local authority and set out why you think the Applicant is failing to conduct its consultation properly. Your comments will be considered by the local authority when sending the Inspectorate its representations on whether the Applicant has fulfilled its consultation duties which will be taken into account when deciding whether the application can be accepted for Examination. Kind regards,

09 March 2020
Bramwell Associates on behalf of the Peninsula Management Group
response has attachments
Received: 23 December 2019 Dear Sirs I understand there was a meeting between the Planning Inspectorate and the above development team (LRCH) on 8th October 2019 or thereabouts but the minutes are yet to be published. It is now nearly three months since that meeting and I find it somewhat incredible that, despite several requests, these minutes have not been made available to interested parties and that there have been no responses to e-mails to yourselves within a reasonable timeframe. Thus I am asking the Secretary of State for an explanation of why there has been a total breakdown in communication from The Planning Inspectorate. Furthermore I am submitting an FoI request for the original unredacted minutes to be released as a matter of urgency. Unfortunately the developer cannot be trusted and has no financial or business credibility but holds many interested parties to ransom jeopardising investment, jobs and the future of many businesses. Your urgent attention to this matter is much appreciated. Received: 14 January 2020 Under the Freedom of Information Act, I would be grateful for answers to the following requests in relation to a meeting about The London Resort Project, an NSIP designated project, held between The Planning Inspectorate and representatives/agents for the above company: 1. A meeting was held on 8th October between agents/representatives for The London Resort Project and The Planning Inspectorate. I should be grateful if you can confirm this and, if so; 2. I should be grateful to receive a copy of the original meeting notes as produced by The Planning Inspectorate; 3. I should be grateful to receive a copy of the final notes to be published on the website which I have been requesting for many weeks; 4. I should be grateful if you could advise me when the next planned meeting is scheduled to take place. Please confirm this request and if you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.
Please see attached documents

10 February 2020
Bramwell Associates - Dan Bramwell
Enquiry received via meeting
response has attachments
Project Update Meeting
Please see attached Meeting Note

08 October 2019
London Resort Company Holdings
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 November 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