The London Resort

Representations received regarding The London Resort

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on The London Resort and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Gamman
"My interest is that my property is very close to the major works that will be carried out."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Bean Residents Association
"1. That the Highway and Transport Design is inadequate for development of this size. 2. The 85th percentile design basis should be 95% as promised in 2019 A2BE Inquiry 3. The access road does not connect directly to the A2(T) but to a single roundabout. 4. The connection of the access road to the roundabout is not grade separated. 5. A reason given for the minimal design is the limited height under a pylon line 6. A Thames ferry and clipper service are insufficient to reduce traffic on the A2(T) 7. The applicant has not adopted a high capacity light-rail/tram Kent-Essex tunnel 8. Explanations are awaited for including Bean properties in Book of Reference."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Eyre
"As a local resident I may make representation on the following areas: 1. environmental impact of the development on the area. 2. Traffic and access of the development 3. Local employment opportunities"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Gamman
"My interest is that my property is located very close to the major works that will be carried out."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Ayres
"I think the resort will be a fantastic idea and the jobs it will bring to the area will be much needed, I live very local to this and regularly walk or run that area and much of the park will be on a disused cement works, the plans have kept the marshland so wildlife will thrive and people locally opposing it from their new build houses that were built on land similar to this and I personally would much rather this park that houses , I really hope it gets the go ahead"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Smith
"I regularly lead guided walks in the area that the proposed development will be, and I believe the development will damage the character of the area which will negatively affect my business and the enjoyment of those that come on the walks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stacey Elliott
"Swanscombe Peninsula is primarily very important as a carbon sink for this area of the South East. It is the habitat of many animals which include protected species- the jumping spider is extremely threatened. The local infrastructure (such as roads around the area) is already under pressure. Local A and E facilities already run at full capacity. Much of the area floods regularly."
Parish Councils
Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council
"The Town Council may wish to make submissions regarding the possible detrimental impact of the proposed development on the area of Swanscombe and Greenhithe and the effect this could have on the residents of the Town.These issues include; parking, noise and pollution, protection of bio-diversity/wildlife, investment in areas of local infrastructure."
Parish Councils
Luddesdown Parish Council
"Luddesdown PC are very concerned about the following aspects of the application (as was made clear at consultation):- 1. Did LRCH take any notice of the issues raised at consultation? We ask because of the remarkably short time after consultation that the DCO was submitted. 2. How has LRCH evaluated it's ecological impact particularly on wildlife, and how has it adapted it's design to avoid the impacts that were evident at consultation? 3. Have LRCH produced a meaningful traffic model that accounts for the maximum expected traffic flows experienced on local roads? This was notably absent from their consultation materials in that the suggestions made at consultation did not nearly amount to the traffic volumes required, nor took into account the current loading of the surrounding road network. 4. Is there a meaningful traffic model for the project (i.e. a model that can detail how to deliver the capacity of traffic required)? 5. What actual steps will be taken to control GHG emissions during construction (apart from suggesting the responsibility lies with others)? 6. What is the detailed plan for the existing rights of way on the peninsula? (the consultation was full of aspirations with no detail) 7. What is it that is actually being built?? There is nothing apart form indicative heights in the consultation to show what is being built and how the it will appear to those living nearby and those passing."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Therese Williams
"As a resident of [] for over 23 years I have witnessed the development of a major retail park which gridlocks our area for weeks every Christmas, an international rail station and tens of thousands of dwellings. I believe that the wellbeing of our residents and our natural environment must take precedence when assessing the principles of allowing the development of a Theme Park. My main concern is the millions of visitors the proposed Theme Park will endeavour to attract to our already congested area of Kent. We do not have the capacity to safely increase the infrastructure and the air pollution the vehicles will bring will add to that already caused by the Dartford Crossing. Our community deserves to be protected from the dangers of heavy traffic and to have their quality of life preserved if not improved. Another major concern is of contributing towards the possible failure to uphold the UK’s policy in halting biodiversity loss by allowing the destruction of the nature reserve, grass and marshlands which are currently home to 1,992 species of invertebrates including 250 of conservation concern. Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council and Dartford Borough Council have a duty to enhance and protect the biodiversity of our home and we have already lost much open space, forcing wildlife into our houses as their habitats are bulldozed. Greening the Thames Gateway includes wildlife protection. Our authorities promised to conserve and protect areas of nature. The UK recognises the urgency to promote areas of conservation interest and our peninsula is recognised as one such area. Our community is entitled to have our wellbeing protected. I urge our powers-that-be not to allow our nature to be undervalued in their decision making. The strategy for England’s wildlife and ecosystem recognises the urgency to stop the loss of biodiversity, the destruction of wildlife habitats and, therefore, maintain ecosystems for keeping our planet healthy; keeping us alive. Not only does nature provide much needed fresh air, relaxation and beauty, it is vital to the understanding of genetic information and sustainability of life. These areas are vital for the health of our planet and the education of future generations. It would be more beneficial to our community to invest in the educational and psychological benefits of the marshland; embrace and enhance its beauty and value rather than to concrete a tidal flood zone for a superficial theme park experience. We would do better to promote our rich history to attract environmentally respectful visitors. Human life depends on protecting other species of life from extinction. Amongst the hundreds of species living on the peninsula is the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider which can only be found in one other area in the U.K. We need to protect our peninsula and its inhabitants. We deserve more than the promise of mediocre jobs too. With the on-going development threatening our open space and air quality, causing an overpopulated, highly trafficked area, we desperately need this gem by the Thames to be respected and protected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Grimwood
"I am a resident of [ ]. The development is certain to cause severe disruption, noise and nuisance to the residents of All Saints Close, which will become enclosed on all sides by the development and it's access routes. The location of heavy plant and power substations in close proximity to All Saints Close is unacceptable, both for noise and pollution from the sub station chimneys. The developer should show how pollution from the chimneys affect residents in All Saints Close. The location of visitors centre and training facility next to All Saints Close will tower over residents property and cause severe disruption. Public access on Pilgrims Road will cause severe disruption and nuisance to the residents of All Saints Close, with visitors from Swanscombe station passing through their entrance to the pubic highway. Pilgrims Road itself is dangerous for public use and for any persons below the cliff drop. The developer should consider public access from the rear of Swanscombe station platform, joining up with the public access from Ebbsfleet station. Pilgrims Road should be considered for local residents from Swanscombe only. The developer has severely underestimated the potential number of visitors who will arrive at Swanscombe Station. This station is not suitable for a high number of visitors. All Saints Close will be severely disrupted by cars using it as a pick up point for the Pilgrims Way public entrance. Parking will cause a nuisance with the visitors centre and training facilities located on Galley Hill. The residents of All Saints Close will become entrapped. With a train station on one side, and the development covering all other sides. The developers plans should be revised to more considerate to All Saints Close residents. Furthermore, the develop should investigate noise, nuisance and disruption to All Saints Close which is not mentioned in the nuisance or noise reports despite being surrounded on all sides as if part of the development itself."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Walker
"I am writing to inform you on my opinion and views on the London Resort project being built in Kent. I’ve been watching the development of this project for the past 5 years and have see drastic change in it. The proposed project to date I feel is a significant and needed addition to the U.K. There are currently no similar projects in the country, which is such a shame as I believe this would be a strongly supported addition to the country. The project itself is proposed to be as green and eco-friendly as possible. In their plans they have proposed to use renewable energy, responsibility relocate any animals and to also manage surrounding marshes and land. Their project has thought very much about the environment and the benefits it could bring to local communities and the economy. It will bring in many jobs to the local Kent area and also be a great destination for leisure for local communities and larger communities. It has excellent connections to Kent, Essex and London through the river Thames, trains and car access. It also has nearby access to the Eurostar which provides easy access to France and other European audiences. As someone who lives somewhat near to the project I strongly believe how much this project will benefit the economy and the people."
Other Statutory Consultees
Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond
"We refer to the above application for development consent. Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within its area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development may have on navigation within Trinity House area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully, Russell Dunham ACII Legal & Risk Advisor"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hannah Piazza
"As a professional working with postgraduate students on their careers, I fully appreciate the benefits that a new property such as the London Resort will bring. I speak not only of the career opportunities this would bring but also the areas in which the future generation would wish to study to enable them to be a part of a project such as this. Also, in regards to the environmental and conservation efforts, I believe the London Resort has a deep understanding of the local wildlife population and will do it's best efforts to improve the current habitat with the removal of a lot of flotsam and jetsam which in usual circumstances would be looked over. I am very passionate about this project going ahead with many of my trips being overseas to support very similar developments, I would gladly welcome the opportunity to be able to spend that money in my home country."
Non-Statutory Organisations
LONDON RESORT FAN GROUP (Facebook) (LONDON RESORT FAN GROUP (Facebook))
"Speaking on behalf of our 2000+ members the group as whole are strongly in support of the London Resort project on all levels including, Employment, which is critical due to the events of the past 12 months, This will also lead to the regeneration of the local surrounding area and the use of the River Thames. The London Resort will also be a blueprint for other major projects under future government plans being a substainable, green and in many ways ground breaking ,which at the same time will look after the surrounding wildlife areas again as group we also fully support. Group is already seeing members from around the world and very local to the site coming together chatting online giving people a focus for fun and excitement for their family’s and supporting the resort project and in time this will lead to both Uk and worldwide visits coming to the area thus giving a massive boost to the Uk tourism and theme park industry which again is much needed in current times and the near future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Dent
"I am strongly against Planning applications being granted as I feel the infrastructure isn’t in place to facilitate vast numbers of visitors (parking for 10,750 cars, accommodation totalling 3,550 suites) when the surrounding roads in the immediate area are unable to cope with the current traffic situation concerning the Dartford Tunnel Crossing! The increase in air pollution on a daily basis will definitely prove detrimental to the health of local residents! Also, the habitat of many species of birds, including rare Marsh Harriers and many types of water fowl, will be irrevocably destroyed! I totally fail to see the value this development would bring to the local community when we struggle on a daily basis to cope with the problems brought about by the continued congestion caused by the Dartford Crossing. Roger Dent"
Parish Councils
Sutton at Hone & Hawley Parish Council
"Effects upon this parish, mainly interns of infrastructure, increased traffic, air quality"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Elliott
"As we come out of the Covid-19 Pandemic, and into an era of potential economic uncertainty, The London Resort has the potential to be a beacon of economic growth and sustainability. Now that the UK has left the European Union, it is imperative that we give people reasons to come into the country in order to boost tourism, and a world class resort that has the potential to be one of the best in the world is the perfect addition to the UK. Going back to my previous point about economic uncertainty, The London Resort stands to create thousands of jobs for people from all walks of life such as hospitality, construction and ideas development. I believe that an opportunity such as the London Resort is once in a lifetime for the UK, and I believe that it is exactly what we as a country need right now."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Brown
"Objection to this planning application. There are multiple small well established local businesses that will find it extremely difficult to find affordable equivalent premises to rent especially coming out of the COVID epidemic. Many of these Limited companies had very little financial assistance from Government during the pandemic and will find it difficult to resume normal operations and need time to re-build their business having used their own monies to prop them up ! There is already far too much traffic associated with this area at the moment and it is growing with the continued construction of houses that we are currently experiencing. The slightest problem on surrounding roads causes grilock on our roads locally."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"Dear Sir/Madam, The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is an interested party for the examination of Development Consent Order (DCO) applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) in the marine area. The MMO has an interest in this project because all construction (including alteration and improvement of works), dredging and maintenance and decommissioning activities associated with the proposed scheme that are within the jurisdiction of the MMO area are considered to be licensable. The DCO application includes a Deemed Marine Licence (DML) under Section 65 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MCAA 2009) and should consent be granted for the project, the MMO will be responsible for monitoring, compliance and enforcement of DML conditions. The MMO is unable to submit its comments in full via the Planning Inspectorate website. Instead, a copy of the MMO’s full representation will be submitted, on or before 31 March 2021, to PINS via email ([email protected]). Yours faithfully, Julia Stobie Please see attached"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Kent Police
"On behalf of Kent Police, I intend to review plans, documentation and proposals, to ensure that Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) is incorporated within the final design, in line with current policies and Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) regarding reducing crime and the fear of crime, where applicable."
Parish Councils
Shorne Parish Council
"Shorne Parish Council is a Local Authority constituted under the Local Government Acts. The Parish is located to the east of Gravesend, in the Borough of Gravesham in the north-west of the county of Kent with the A2 to its south and the River Thames to its north. Our principal concerns about this proposal are summarised as follows: 1) Traffic impacts on the A2 and beyond - this proposal will increase vehicular traffic on the A2 both heading west and particularly east from London and the M25. Traffic in this area is already congested and set to increase further due to the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) proposals coupled with very large housing development targets. The proposal will pull even more traffic into the wider area, including also using the A229, A228 and A227 which are already congested and/or unsuitable for additional traffic volumes. The LTC proposals include narrowing the A2 down to only two lanes (from current 4) as it passes by Gravesend without room for later re-widening. Traffic will also be pulled onto the Dartford Crossing compromising any relieving effect from the LTC. There is significant fear of large queues forming on the A2 wanting to exit to the Theme Park. This will be especially bad in the run up to Xmas due to conflict with Bluewater Shopping Centre traffic. 2) Traffic impacts on M25 junction 2 - The junction of the M25 northbound with the A2 westbound is already a traffic bottleneck as traffic needs to negotiate a roundabout controlled by traffic lights, and will be made worse. 3) Interference with access to and from Ebbsfleet International Station - Local residents need to be able to access the station to make journeys and also to get back home again. For rural residents this is predominantly by car. We are concerned that residents will be prevented from accessing and leaving the station in a timely fashion (including during many years of construction) and that parking at the station will be occupied detrimentally by visitors to the theme park. 4) Conflict for train timings and space on trains - In our view there will be conflict between theme park attendance and commuters, especially late afternoon and early evening. Too many trains are being planned to use the HS1 line which is only two-track, and this will slow our commuter trains. 5) Landscape impact - The early plans for the scheme were relatively low rise, now high multi-storey buildings are proposed that will have visual impact over a very wide area particularly from Shorne Woods Country Park and the North Thames Marshes Special Protection Area and Ramsar Site, having detrimental effect on their ambience. 6) While not direct impacts on our Parish, we would also like to express concern about: the loss of businesses located at Ebbsfleet that are used by our residents as it is not clear where they will be relocated to; the environmental impact on the Ebbsfleet peninsula marshes; the adverse effect on local residents of Northfleet and Greenhithe. 7) There may be other points that we wish to raise that are not being presently mentioned."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Douglas Noble
"I think the idea of the London Resort is a great idea. The fact that it will create lots of jobs in an area that is suffering at the moment. I also think that this resort will bring lots of tourists especially after the pandemic of coiid 19."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Outram
"I object to the proposed London Resort as I believe the transport strategy will lead to unsustainable growth in traffic on local roads and the wider road network. Existing public transport capacity is fully utilised at peak times, it cannot handle the required increase in capacity. Accessibility issues at Swanscombe and Northfleet stations are not addressed by the proposals. Existing infrastructure for Non-Motorised Users (NMUs) in the area are poor, future 'improvements' outlined in the transport plan are inadequate to deliver the target level of users arriving by active modes. Significant transport infrastructure investments will be made on visitor parking and access highways. The major transport mode for staff and visitor arrivals will be the private motor car, with all the pollution congestion and road danger that brings. The main motor vehicle access to the site from the A2 Ebbsfleet junction has inadequate at grade provision for NMU journeys across the junction. There is no NMU provision alongside the main vehicle access, leaving NMUs to make journeys which are indirect by comparison in terms of length, time and gradients. The designs are contrary to best practice outlined in CD195 and LTN1/20. Likewise the proposals suggest the ferry will have potential for commuter journeys, without providing NMU links alongside the 'people mover' route. Where segregated NMU provision is proposed between Ebbsfleet International and the site pay gate, it is to the minimum standard outlined in LTN1/20. Such design does not anticipate significant numbers arriving by healthy sustainable modes. The transport masterplan is not sustainable. The majority of visitor journeys will be by private motor vehicle."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Smith
"I am writing to you in regards to what I feel to be the main focus to my application. Employment. Mainly due to the global pandemic, many millions of jobs have been lost. The London Resort will be the ideal way to regenerate the economy for Kent and the UK, also providing a much needed boost for morale while welcoming people from the world over to visit Kent and London."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natasha Hines
"I intend to state my objections to the development due to the following reasons: Pollution - Increase of vehicle and vessels during and after the build causing more pollution to the local area, including the river. Congestion - Once built the congestion to the area will significantly increase to the already congested roads due to the visitors. Destruction of nature - The marshes are the main land which inhabits most of the local wildlife. This will all be killed and one of the few green spaces left within the area will be destroyed. Flooding - This area is natural flood land which takes on water before reaching the residential buildings. Destroying it would increase the risk of flooding to locals. Mental health - It is proven that walking amongst nature and open spaces is good for mental health which is why this area is popular to walk around. By taking away this space and with the increase of noise from the visitors and rides could pose a negative affect"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mechtek Engineering Ltd
"I am a Director of Mechtek Engineering Ltd. We occupy Unit [] under a leasehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business is Mechanical Fabrication & Mechanical site services and we employ 6 staff. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain both customers and staff. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Save Manston Airport association
"The Save Manston Airport association believe that there will be a significant synergy between The London Resort and the availability of closely available passenger flights to and from Manston Airport, one hour away by road. Manston Airport has in the past had 35 minutes KLM flights to Schiphol, Amsterdam, and probably will again. We wish to follow The London DCO closely, and be able to make the above representations, when possible and appropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melanie Sapiets
"The proposed site for development contains Grassland, Coastland, Scrub and Wetland and many habitats have arisen due to this. It has the largest number of nationally scarce invertebrates in the UK. It is the second of only two habitats of the Distinguished Jumping Spider and 1500 other types of invertebrates, 250 of which are a national concern to conservationists. Other species at risk include the Sea Aster Mining Bee, Marsh Harrier, Kingfisher, Otter, Skylark, Man Orchid, Water Vole and various reptiles. Wintering birds depend on it for food. It is the most wildlife rich brownfield site in the UK. Adding to that, the air pollution around the Dartford Tunnel Approach and North of Bean was the square kilometre with the highest level of air pollution (measured as Particulate Matter 2.5 which is pollution that can enter the bloodstream) in the whole of the UK in 2018. That is double what the WHO recommend. From 2011-2016 that area was triple the national average of air pollution. Traffic is already expected to increase in that area by 50% from 2014 to 2041 due to the new Bean interchange and housing development, so building the London Resort will add more congestion on top of that due to that interchange being one which people will use to reach Swanscombe Peninsula. This means even higher levels of pollution and congestion in and around that area if London Resort is built, let alone the congestion that already occurs in and around Dartford and the surrounding areas if there is a problem with the tunnel. Even if most vehicles are electric by 2041, Particulate Matter of 2.5 is still released from brakes and tyres, and the huge amount of junctions in and around the A2/M25 interchange at that point will lead to breaking shockwaves. Moreover, 140 local businesses that are already in the area, that employ local people, will be forced to move. There are no other sites comparable in the local area for them to move to. Overall, this development threatens the health and life of not only the local community due to the pollution levels and congestion, but the threat to biodiversity and from pollution levels is actually a national one."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Backhouse
"I wish to support this development and provide my expert knowledge in areas discussed around the park planning and development with creative planning"
Other Statutory Consultees
Anglian Water Services Ltd
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the London Resort project. Anglian Water is considered to be a statutory consultee for nationally significant infrastructure projects as identified in the Planning Act 2008 and associated regulations. The following representations are submitted on behalf of Anglian Water as sewerage undertaker for the Essex part of the site: Impact on existing assets: There are existing foul and surface water sewers located within the boundary of the Essex site as shown on statutory asset plans. These assets are critical to enable us to carry out Anglian Water's duty as a sewerage undertaker. From our discussions with the applicant, we understand that currently there is no requirement to divert or relocate the existing sewers to enable the Essex site to come forward for development. Protective provisions for Anglian Water: We have previously requested the inclusion of specific wording for the benefit of Anglian Water to ensure that we can continue to serve our customers and limit the potential for disruption to the services we provide to our customers. It is noted that specific protective provisions for Anglian Water are not included in the current version of the DCO as agreed with the applicant's legal representative in November 2020. We understand that this was an error, and the agreed protective provisions will be included in the next version of the Draft DCO to submitted to the Examining Authority. Therefore, we recommend that the Draft DCO is amended to include specific protective provisions for Anglian Water as previously requested. As such, we would wish to make a holding objection to Draft DCO wording for the reasons set out above. Connections to public sewerage networks: a foul connection to the public sewerage network is required for the Essex site. Currently there is available capacity within both the public sewerage network and Tilbury Water Recycling Centre (formerly sewage treatment works) to serve the proposed development. An application to Anglian Water to make a connection to the public sewerage network will be required in accordance with the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991. We note that it is proposed that surface water will be discharged directly into the River Thames from the Essex site via a new independent system (6.12.7.1 Environmental Statement Appendix 17.1 - Flood Risk Assessment). As such the surface water drainage strategy for the Essex part of the site does not appear to interact with Anglian Water's operated assets. Therefore, we would expect Thurrock Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to comment on the suitability of proposed method of surface water drainage for the Essex site. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Black
"The appropriateness and the proposed sustainable transport strategy and TDM components."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Federation of Small Businesses
"We generally support the application to develop a theme park on the site at Swanscombe Peninsular, but greater consideration needs to be given to the businesses currently occupying the site. Currently, the plans do not provide adequate assistance to the 140 firms currently located on the site employing around 2500 people to relocate, particularly as there is a significant shortfall of suitable industrial premises in the North Kent area. Our representations will cover the following: design changes so that the industrial estates located around Ebbsfleet United Football Club are excluded from the developed area, provision of new industrial units by the developer on a site located to the NE of the existing docks, assistance by the developer in locating suitable sites locally, assistance to businesses that currently rent premises in the development site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gülhan Kaynar
"I believe this project will improve the whole country, it will regenerate the area, will create job opportunities. I wholeheartedly support London Resort."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bob Lane
"I am not predetermined in my views on this application. I intend to comment on: Potential impact of traffic to the area, including A2 and river crossings; Potential impact on employment; Potential impact on housing accommodation in the area; Potential impact on impact on local marshland and riverside amenities; Potential impact on local transport and tourism."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelvin Pankhurst
"Safe access to site via Swanscombe high street, entrance point beside No23 Dentist and hair dressers shop opposite."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ron Hook
"Swanscombe Peninsula - It is not only the impact that this development will have on wildlife in the area, the loss of a rare piece of mixed habitat with huge biodiversity, there is also the detrimental affect this will have on the environment for the people who live in the area and the loss of a vital outdoor space for people to enjoy – particularly highlighted in the last year. Work by the RSPB, Buglife, Kent Wildlife Trust, and many local people, including some of our members, have shown that rather than being built upon, the land is actually worthy of being designated as a SSSI. The three organisations are collaborating in opposing the development, and have already responded in the Public Consultation. See a précis of the RSPB response in our previous post. This area has been enjoyed by walkers and wildlife, as Malcolms post shows, it was an area that Robert Pocock (1760-1830) knew well and on their visit in 2014, Malcolm and Sally found the Wild Wallflowers that Pocock had seen nearly 200 years before."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. R. John Pritchard
"I strongly support this Application due to its positive socio-economic impact through jdirect, indirect, induced and catalytic employment across the Southeast of England and beyond. Being resident in the Isle of Thanet, I'm conscious of a synergy that will develop between this DCO project and another NSIP very near me: RiverOak's plans for the regeneration and operation of Manston Airport as a cargo hub with additional passenger services, and the prospects for cruise ship and growth in our own visitor attractions along the coast. Further and alternatively, the London Resort will require the upgrading of our major arterial highways (and the illumination of parts of them that are sorely in need of that) across much of Kent. This will also make our travel between Thanet, the Medway Towns and London safer and even better connected than at present. In addition, even local farmers will benefit from the fact that the London Resort will create new markets for their goods, helping to raise their horizons and productivity, too."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hazel Stephens
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is home to a lot of rare flora and fauna and is an important flood plain for the Thames. It is very flooded at the moment. It is one of the few green/brown spaces in this area. We do not have the infrastructure to deal with all the extra traffic this would generate. We are frequently gridlocked due to the Dartford Crossing plus the A2 and Bluewater Shopping Centre, a theme park can only add to the traffic congestion. We are one of the most highly polluted areas in the country. We are over developed with housing due to the plans for Ebbsfleet Garden City. I do not believe the argument that it will provide local employment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Haines
"Pollution, loss of habitat"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Mcnair
"Swanscombe Marshes is a nationally important wildlife sight as well as having a positive role in people's mental welfare."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stuart Ray
"We have been leasing [] since 2015. The size and value for money cannot be found in the surrounding areas. The location is perfect, it is 1 mile from our home in [] and we can reach London in under 30 minutes. We waited 3 years for this unit to become available for these reasons. We have spent thousands of pounds upgrading the unit to suit our needs. We have installed gas central heating, upgraded the electrics, installed an extraction system, built internal offices and a mezzanine floor. We are a very specialised business and use heavy machinery so had to upgrade the 3-phase circuit board. It has taken time, money and effort to reach the stage we are at now. Most of our clients and many of our suppliers are based in London and being able to reach them, and them us in under 30 minutes makes our position unique. It contributes to keeping our client base on board. Moving further out and being more remote would certainly pose many issues. At present we can offer same day delivery and clients can visit at ease. We have looked at surrounding areas for suitable units to re-locate to and they don’t exist. Whilst there are many industrial sites, they do not offer anything for small businesses. Our current unit is 650 sq ft and we would not require anything larger than 1000 sq ft. Our current rent is £7,500 pa. We have not be able to find anything like this. Our apprentices live locally and would not be able to travel too far as they do not drive. It is important that they are able to complete their apprenticeships. I don’t always have access to a car but at present I can walk to work. Having to travel will add time and costs to an already busy life. We are a small family run business with a small turnover. We try and keep costs to a minimum and run at a small profit. Any increase in overheads would be extremely detrimental. Having to re-locate would put a significant strain on our finances. Due to the pandemic any profit that was available has been eaten and it is only due to grants and furlough that we have so far survived. It would take weeks or even months and be extremely expensive to set up shop at a new unit and another big break in being unable to deliver to our clients could be fatal for us as a business. We have a lot of heavy machinery, as well as safes and chemicals that would all require specialist help to move. I am just one of 140 businesses that will be affected by this development, we all contribute to the local economy keeping 5000 people employed and sadly some those will be lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Reilly
"I would like to voice my strong support for the project as the area needs development. I believe it will support the construction industry, local jobs & will give the local economy a huge boost. It will also increase visitors to the area from the UK & abroad, which will help the national economy. It will also improve the image of the surrounding area. I am impressed by the plans to enhance the nature reserve and feel it will benefit wildlife and eco-systems."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Else
"I have lived in []for nearly 50 years and have watched the recreational spaces shrink as the "brown field" sites have been built upon. Swanscombe Marshes is the last oasis of wildlife in an otherwise concrete and congested neighborhood. I regularly walk there with my dog and enjoy watching the buzzards and marsh harriers quartering across the reed beds. There are several breeds of warblers that nest amongst the reeds and there is still a small heronry clinging on despite the trees they used to nest in being cut down a few years ago. To destroy this small oasis of nature would in my opinion be a crime, and I strongly urge you to reject this unnecessary development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Chris Down
"This objection relates to Document BC0800001-000502-6.2.14.1 ES appendix 14.1, Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment. The DBA substantially underplays the development’s potential to cause archaeological harm to remains from the nineteenth/early twentieth century cement works and in particular its railways. From c1825 to c1928, Swanscombe cement works operated a very extensive railway system of 3ft 5½in gauge and having about 21 miles of track in 1924. This was unique in the world, other than one or two trivial and temporary examples. Every railway in the world employs (and most have employed for some two centuries) plain rails on which run wheels with inside flanges. Swanscombe used plain rails and outside flange wheels. There is no good explanation for this, although my research has identified some hypotheses, but it is very possible that targeted archaeological excavations could (a) uncover some surviving track and (b) help to identify the reason for this remarkable choice. The DBA fails to refer to this matter. Over the period 1927-29, the railways were modernised to conventional standard (4ft 8½in) gauge and those remains present no special archaeological potential. However, the modern rails ran on rather different routes and there is considerable potential for discovering remains of the original track, buried but surviving, where it was not built over or removed for scrap. My full objection will include a detailed historical assessment and a draft of a targeted investigation programme. If adopted, not only might this development considerably increase the knowledge of UK railway history, were it actually to discover physical remains they could provide a unique public exhibition that would be a visitor attraction in itself. No DCO should be granted until an archaeological investigation and mitigation programme to investigate this unique aspect of the site’s history has been required. This is the best and probably last chance to obtain better knowledge of this railway system. I am willing and able to provide information which will assist such an investigation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
KCG Services Ltd
"I am a Director of KCG Services Ltd. We occupy [] under a leasehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business is structural steel fabrication and we employ seven staff. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain both customers and staff. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pallas Auto
"We occupy [], which is within the red line boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business is restoration & repairs of classic Citroen DS cars and we are two partners. We need to remain within the Gravesend area as it is equidistant between our respective homes and our partners both work near where we live and cannot relocate. While we have customers locally and nationally this is the perfect location in respect of transport infrastructure for customers to bring their cars and return home. We are very concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. We have looked to see if there are other similar size industrial units locally which will suit our purposes and there is nothing else available. Our concern is that it will be extremely difficult to relocate within the local area and continue to run our business and earn a living."
Members of the Public/Businesses
STW Fabrications Ltd
"I am a Director of STW Fabrications Ltd. We occupy [] under a freehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business is structural steel fabrication. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain both customers and staff. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
A.Addison
"I live in [], but that fact should not dismiss my concerns about this planning application. All SSI sites should remain so, there is no real justification for this destruction. Allowing tons of concrete, thousands of tourists, eventually complete with their baggage’s of litter is a travesty. There are plenty of entertainment venues for people. This country and indeed the World needs and demands some parts not to change, to save species incapable of saving themselves to be a joy for future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adrian Jaques
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Akshay Patel
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is an area of great importance to wildlife. I believe the development will cause significant, permanent damage to nationally and internationally important wildlife and habitats. The area, as you may know, is home to 250 invertebrate species and dozens of bird species that are of conservation concern, including rare and endangered bees. Wildlife across the country is in decline, and it is important now more than ever that we protect it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan McVitty
"Swanscombe Marshes are a unique site for wildlife. They are home to a huge number of birds and animals, including invertebrates. This site has already been deemed a Site of Special Scientific interest. Swanscombe Marshes should be protected, not built on. The wildlife that lives on the Marshes needs protection now and for the future. I am firmly against any so called 'development' of Swanscombe Marshes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alex Pringle
"Swanscombe marshes are only half an hour away from where I live and is a rare natural area fronting the river and it is really important to keep these 'wild and different' areas which provide a chance for many of us to experience nature close to where we live and also enjoy the river frontage. The river sides are so built up all the way from London and this is another reason why this area should remain free of new developments."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Bunn
"We are in the middle of a biodiversity crisis, with wildlife populations declining at alarming rates, as described in the recent IPBES report (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). The 2019 UK State of Nature report shows that 41% of UK species populations are declining in abundance (https://nbn.org.uk/stateofnature2019/https://nbn.org.uk/stateofnature2019/). With this in mind, it is unthinkable that one of our most important wildlife sites, Swanscombe Peninsula, could be destroyed to develop a theme park. Swanscombe is a unique site and is vitally important for many of our native species, as has now been recognised through its SSSI status. Its complex history has allowed it to develop a patchwork of grassland, scrub and wetland that support a huge range of species. This includes: • over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the critically endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK, and many rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles and wasps. • 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance including Marsh Harriers, Bearded Tit, Nightingales and Black Redstart. • 13 nationally scarce plants including 5 red-listed species such as the Man Orchid. • Important populations of reptiles, bats, Water Vole and Otter. This site is far too important for wildlife nationally, as well as for the health and enjoyment of local people and visitors, to be lost to development. If we are to achieve the 25 Year Environment Plan goal of reversing biodiversity decline, Swanscombe will need to be protected as a vital part of a new Thames Estuary nature recovery network. I urge you to recognise the unique and irreplaceable value of this site and the hundreds of species that depend on it for survival. Please protect it for future generations to enjoy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Reboul
"Swanscombe Marshes are a nationally important site for a variety of wildlife, particularly plants, invertebrates and birds. The natural world is continually being eroded and we need the marshes in their current state far more than a theme park. This site should be an SSSI ( as recommended by Natural England) and afforded protection from development. Please reject the planning application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allison Macpherson
"Swanscombe Peninsula. I am distressed that any consideration should be given to the development of this unique location which offers coastal, grassland, scrub and wetland environments for an incredible range of rare and endangered species. This at a time when many of us are trying hard to make up for the loss of suitable environments for insects, birds, other wildlife and plants in our own small gardens and local areas. I have never seen a man orchid except in photos, and any site which has them should be protected automatically and without debate. When that site also shelters at least 250 invertebrate species of concern to conservationists and is a breeding site for 15 red listed bird species, 12 other bird species of principal importance, 13 nationally scarce plants and 5 red listed plants it's survival is of national importance. Please adopt Natural England's proposal that the peninsula should be made a site of special scientific interest and protect it to the full extent of the law. Sincerely, Allison Macpherson"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Blewett
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment. The Swanscombe Marshes site is extremely valuable both or people and nature. I am very concerned that it should be conserved for its nature value which is irreplaceable and which brings me and my family great joy, whether we live close by our not. You are aware that this site has been recommended for SSRI status because of its high biodiversity including all classes of animals and plants. The SE of England is one of the most developed and populated regions in the world. People need to have high quality nature close by for their physical and mental well-being. We are facing a dramatic decline in wildlife in England and globally, with escalating extinctions. We have to stop this or face our own eventual destruction. This can sound dramatic I am aware but we know scientifically that ecosystem loss and decline damages human health and well-being. To confront this problem requires a brave and decisive change to the way we approach land use. We simply have to recognise places such as this as a unique part of our general heritage - it's beauty and life qualities must be treasured. Too often short-term profit and commercial purposes overwhelm our ability to see beauty and nature when it is right under our noses. This is an example. We have all now read the Dasgupta Report. We have yet to grasp and understand it as a society. We must do so. Please make Swanscombe Marshes a sign that we have finally matured and understood the immense task of nature recovery ahead. The first step is to stop routine destruction as proposed by developers at this site. Please do not permit development. Conserve Swanscombe and we, our children and all of our grandchildren will thank you with all their hearts."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Mcpherson
"We can no longer allow unnecessary developments like this to be given priority over the environment. Planned development must be for the benefit of all given our uncertain future. It is no longer acceptable for individuals and companies to profit at the expense of the rest of society. Please refuse planning permission on this important SSSI site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Starey
"I am horrified by the plans to build a theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. The peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife - it is one of the country's best wildlife sites, as evidenced by its recent SSSI designation. And people who live locally depend on it for their recreation, health and wellbeing. The pandemic and lockdowns have highlighted how vital access to green space is to everybody - we should be making more greenspace available to people, not taking it away. We are living in a time of multiple crises - nature extinction, environmental degredation, mental health and inequality. We have a duty to value and protect national treasures like Swanscombe Peninsula, so they and the wildlife they support can thrive for future generations to enjoy and to support the planet's struggling ecosystems. Theme parks are great, but they need to be sited sensitively. Siting one on Swanscombe peninsula would be an act environmental vandalism. I urge you to reconsider it. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Crowe
"In normal times I visit London often as I have two sets of grandchildren there, one family living in Hackney. I am concerned to ensure this SSSI remains so, since it supports a wide range of flora and fauna, some of which are now extremely rare in the UK, including black redstarts, nightingales and marsh harriers, as well as invertebrates like rare spiders, worms, wasps and bees. It is crucial that we preserve exceptional mosaic sites like this for children of future generations and we should be bending over backwards to do so whenever and wherever we can. Anna Crowe"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annabel Stockman
"I wish to defend the Swanscombe Marshes against social vandalism and I totally oject to the proposal. Nature, and the preservation, conservation and protection of it is even more crucial and essential NOW than it ever was. Without Nature there will be no humans. Please do not support the destruction of this unique natural space in the name of entertainment of humans when we are actually facing a global self-destruction, starting with nature."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne McGregor
"With the frighteningly rapid decline of wildlife in the UK, surely it makes sense not to destroy still more valuable habitat, which currently provides a home for so many different, and specialised, species."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annie Fletcher
"I urge you not to grant permission for a theme park to be built on a site if special scientific interest as is it degrades and devalues the designation and is totally unnecessary and none essential. It will not improve the amenity but reduce it Outside green space is vital for wildlife and subsequently vital for human life too. Please look at the research into the importance of green space and access to the natural world on the mental and emotional well-being of humans"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arnold Woolley
"I am not a local to the area. However, I am a keen environmentalist who knows the area. From that I would respectfully point out that it is of such value in the scheme of natural areas within our nation that Natural England are seeking to have it listed as a Site of Special Scientific Interest, a registration which I fully support. Swanscomb, because of its peninsula situation is a unique location comprising a mozaic of assorted coastal habitats, wetlands, grasslands and scrub bushes created over the centuries by the interface of natural and human activities. The site contains locally and nationally important populations of Otter, Water Vole, newts and bats. In addition, It is a breeding area for a dozen or more red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern, as well as being home for better than a couple of hundred invertebrate species also of conservation concern, to name the critically endangered jumping spider, Attulus Distinguendus, which has only one single other location in the UK. My understanding is that so far, and research in the area is ongoing, a dozen or more varieties of nationally scarce vascular plants are known to be thriving in the area. History teaches us that Theme Parks come and go, but our natural assets need to be protected in perpetuity, because nature and our essential need to work alongside it, rolls on forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Baljit Dhillon
"I look forward to seeing how this development will bring welcomed jobs to the area. It will inspire young people and adults to dream again. It will give them the ability to thrive in employment and be involved in a project that will put this part of Kent on the map. It will help future generations to hopefully come out of poverty or be labelled that they live in a disadvantaged area. It will raise hopes and aspirations of the community and be a welcomed breath of fresh air. Hopefully it will inject a level of positivity in the area, a feeling of excitement which is needed in this climate. The area has had its hopes raised on a few occasions with this project, it seems like it is finally going ahead. This area was once a thriving part of England's history, its time we put this area on the map and can't wait for the influx of visitors from all of the world which will improve social interaction once again."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Becky Wood
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- surely there is no better reason to keep this area safe from development than to protect our beleaguered wildlife and natural environment.? We cannot afford to keep losing these precious spaces which offer biodiversity and refuge for so much flora and fauna."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ben Scott-Robinson
"The registration of Swanscombe Marshes site as an SSSI must be viewed as a deciding factor in the giving of planning permission on this land. The development of the London Resort theme park cannot honestly be evaluated as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure. The Swanscombe Peninsula currently provides two critical benefits. 1. A publicly available free open space for local residents; which has been proved to be key in the preservation of mental health in the COVID lockdowns 2. A critical ecological oasis with some of the greatest levels of biodiversity in the country. It's destruction in order to create a theme park is neither in the interest of the local community, the environment or the country as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Beryll Withers
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- and it is important to continue to protect this land because the wildlife depends on it. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. The Swanscombe Peninsula is an exceptional and exemplar site in a unique location within the ecological context of the Thames Estuary. Swanscombe has been shown to meet SSSI selection criteria, with regards to typicalness, fragility, size, diversity, ecological coherence, and the rarity of both species and habitats supported. The nationally important invertebrate populations and their associated habitats alone should be considered sufficient to meet the criteria of SSSI designation, with an unparalleled associated fauna. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, and 49 red listed species – demonstrably greater than any known OMHPDL site in the UK. For example, its assemblage appears to exceed that of Canvey Wick in terms of number of nationally rare and scarce species, a site held up as ‘the’ exemplary OMHPDL site. This is despite Canvey Wick having a more extensive recording history, including intensive recording approaching its notification, and being a destination for invertebrate recorders for the last decade due to its known importance for brownfield invertebrates. The invertebrate survey data in the public domain for the Swanscombe Peninsula and made 20 available to Natural England has confirmed an impressive species list and it has also taken the useful step of making direct quantitative comparisons with other Thames Estuary sites accepted as being of national importance. The site is also one of only two UK sites for the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider, making it of great significance to the conservation of the species and its continued existence in the UK. The Swanscombe Peninsula also supports populations of other species groups which meet the Kent Wildlife Trust’s criteria for selection and delineation of Local Wildlife Sites, further highlighting the significance of the site for nature conservation in the Thames Estuary38 The site supports exceptional populations of Common lizard (Zootoca vivipara) and Slow worm (Anguis fragilis), with the London Resort’s Ecology Baseline Report stating that “The extent of the wetland habitat and waterbodies within the Kent Project Site has the potential to support large numbers of amphibians and records suggest that smooth and palmate newt, common toad and common frog are present.” The site would also qualify as a Local Wildlife Site due to the presence of breeding populations of both Water vole and Dormouse (Muscardinus avellanarius), and the site is considered locally important due to an assemblage of at least nine bat species, including the Nationally Rare Barbastelle (Barbastella barbastellus). I have serious concerns that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and that it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Chapman
"I am writing to voice my concern regarding the potential loss of Swanscombe Marshes, a place that brings enrichment and joy to so many people, and a perfect habitat for hundreds of species of flora and fauna who call it home. This is a precious site, the presence of which is irreplaceable. We are losing so much of what makes Britain great - our wonderful, amazing Great British Countryside - from ancient woodlands ripped apart for a new railway, to the fields which surround my town torn up for charmless crowded housing estates. And now, the Marshes - for what? Please take a step back and ponder what will be displaced, what will disappear for good, and what we will lose, as individuals and as a Nation. Thank you for your time."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Bumblebee Conservation Trust
"Swanscombe supports a nationally important Open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. It is an inappropriate site for a theme park. The Bumblebee Conservation Trust was funded through our project Making a Buzz for the Coast https://www.bumblebeeconservation.org/making-a-buzz-for-the-coast/ has used public money to safeguard rare bee populations by creating and restoring habitat and linking isolated populations together through the creation of flower-rich ‘stepping stones’ and habitat along the north kent coast. Our rarest bee is still at risk of extinction. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. All of the information submitted to date is based on a site free of any designation. The recent notification of the site as a SSSI changes the baseline considerably and it is essential that the application be re-submitted. Although the SSSI is now subject to consultation, there is a statutory duty for it to be considered as a SSSI until the end of this process in July. This site is vital as one of the stepping stones fro the Shrill carder bee - our rarest bumblebee. We have an opportunity here to build on the few positives that the covid pandemic has provided - that nature - not theme parks - is what provides all society with better mental health and well being. In addition pollinators play a vital role in our lives. they contribute over £700 million per annum to the UK economy and in doing so prop up £108 billion per year food and rink industry in Britain. Our pollinators are in such trouble that we are currently importing 70,000 commercially farmed bumblebees from Europe into this country every year to support our soft fruit industry. Without them our diets, our health and our lives are less rich - and our food scarce and expensive with much less variety. When I was growing up my parents used to play a Bob Dylan song called ‘Who killed Davey Moore’ about a boxer who dies in the ring when he was just 30 years old. Each verse begins with some party – the coach, the crowd, the manager, the gambling man, the boxing writer the other fighter – answering the titles question ‘Who killed Davey Moore’. They each respond Not I…and then explain that they were just doing what it is that they do – writing about it, throwing punches etc. We too are doing just that what it is that we do: ensuring the largest political donors support our political campaigns; maximising profits; ensuring a high share price; living a comfortable life style; avoiding change; lazily buying back into the conceit that we humans are special. But sometimes, just doing what it is we do is sufficient to kill, not just Davey Moore, but everything. Everyone can…and should… do something to not simply to save these astonishing creatures and nature for their own sake – a good enough reason from my perspective, but for the continued health and wellbeing of the planet, our food security and our own futures."
Members of the Public/Businesses
C J Reen
"I believe that habitat destruction and the consequent decline of wildlife should , when possible , be resisted rather than encouraged , that biodiversity should be assisted rather than reduced further . I understand that SSSI sites occupy only 4.4% of the countries land mass and that this is a formal conservation designation given to areas of particular environmental importance . It is clear from the proposed 'theme park ' plans that a large part of this unique habitat will be destroyed. Often the proposer accompanies plans with pledges to protect the remnant area that the has not been destroyed in the process. We have , however , seen a Scottish coastal golf course eliminate an SSI despite promises. In my opinion it is mentally and physically healthier for people to be out in nature looking at was is around them rather than to fed manufactured 'themes' . Reject the theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Candace J Piette
"I visited Swanscombe from South East London to do some bird-watching. With so few places left where families can visit and see around them wildlife in its natural habitat, Swanscombe plays an important role. It is located near housing estates and working class neighbourhoods and does a valuable service providing a place where all families can go for a breath of fresh air, to look at the wild birds and observe a truelly wild place which has sprung up out of the remains of an industrial site. Please dont take this away! With climate change on its way we need to have as many places as possible to teach people about the wildlife and for the wildlife itself to survive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carole Bowden
"I object to the application for a theme park Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- tell them how important it is for the wildlife depends on it. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The marshes need to be left for the wildlife"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cassandra Clarke
"I first became aware of Swanscombe Peninsula when looking for wild, natural places to visit near my home in South London. As a Londoner, I love going to places where I can see wildlife and nature close up, something that's in short supply in this city. I was upset to hear that the land might be developed into a theme park so I felt I should stand up for this wonderful and unique place. To my mind, Swanscombe Peninsula is a natural theme park full of beautiful wild plants and creatures. It's home to endangered species including orchids, spiders and birds - it needs to be protected from development so future generations can enjoy them too. A theme park seems like a very short-term vision for the site. Once the nature and wildlife is is gone it might not return. Spending time in blue and green outdoor spaces is great for well-being and post-pandemic I think people will cherish these spaces. I object to the development of Peninsula into the London Resort theme park, its not the right place and I think it should become a protected nature reserve permanently."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cathy Preece
"I am writing to express my horror at the threat to this invaluable site I write personally but I am a member of various organisations such as the River Thames Society, and active with other groups engaged in walking, wildlife, nature, birdwatching, the environment, etc and love the Thames Estuary, and last August between lockdowns, spent a wonderful day walking 16 kilometres around this wonderful site. Since then I have shared with others my shock that it is threatened by such a gross proposal for such a monstrous carbuncle and unwanted resort, just another useless Millennium Dome all over again at such a tragic cost to our natural world and the future generations"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Norman
"I would argue that there is no need for more theme parks in this country but there is a desperate need to preserve wildlife habitats for the good of native species and also for the preservation of corridors for birds and insects and so on. I read Mark Cocker's 'Our Place' a couple of years ago and was appalled. Here is a sentence from my review of the book: His impressive research and knowledge of his subject have resulted in a deeply worrying portrait of a countryside that has been impoverished almost beyond belief through disastrous policy-making, greed and inertia."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Bowman
"I live locally to the peninsula and often walk around there exploring the area and often see many types of wild life. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. The theme park has stated ‘The project will of course continue, and this is just another issue to address in the long history of this project,’ this trivializes the enormous environmental impact building a theme park will bring. You can’t build a theme park and not wipe nature. The response does not address how the endangered species will be protected. It will also add considerable traffic and increase air pollution to the area with 1000’s more cars using already heavy congested local roads not built to support that level. I ask you from a moral point to reject the application"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Bulow
"Please don't take away or damage this highly important wildlife site. There are other places where an adventure park could be sited that wouldn't have the same hugely detrimental effect that this will have on an area that is agreed to be so with preserving. Wildlife in the UK is in precipitate decline, this would be another nail in the coffin of sustainability in the countryside. I'd urge you to not approve this application. Thank you for taking the time to read my submission."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Frost
"I am objecting to this planning application because being a member of the Kent Wildlife Trust I know how important and sensitive this area is ,as well as supporting a critically endangered Jumping Spider,it is Home to 15 Red listed Birds , Rare Orchids such as Man Orchid this is no Place to Build a Leasure center now or ever whilst our Wildlife flora and fauna are under extreme pressure we should be protecting what we have before it is too late and we cannot show our Grandchildren what we Had. Yours sincerely Chris Frost"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Green
"Please protect Swanscombe Marshes from development. It supports a wide range of endangered plants and animals. Many species have declined by, on average, approximatelt 45% in the UK. Many are threatened with extinction. Please don't let this happen again. There must be other sites suitable for this kind of development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Mcgarry
"This area has been recommended by Natural England as an area of specific scientific interest.It has much bio diversity and many rare species of invertebrates and plans including a spider that is only found in one other area of the UK and 5 species of plants that are on the red list.It is also a haven for breeding birds and home to reptiles water vole, amphibians and otter.This is such an important area for wildlife and nature that I cannot understand why anyone would want to put anything there let alone a theme park"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Downes
"I object to this application on several grounds, firstly we must protect the wildlife, secondly the south east of England is fast becoming concreted over and thirdly which follows on from that, the pollution in the area with all the extra cars will inevitably rise. We already have high levels of congestion with hundreds of new houses being built around ebbsfleet which is right next door to the proposed site. We also have the bluewater shopping centre along side. The A2 is often at a standstill at the moment, I also think it is completely misleading to call it the London Resort, or is that the intention to make the area part of greater London? It is in the wrong place completely."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Shephard
"I wish to object to this planning application,this is a very important site for a diverse range of wild life and should be protected. In today’s climate it would be a real disaster if this was destroyed just to build another theme park. What people need in their lives is getting closer to the natural world, instead of noisy fun fairs. Please protect this site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Briggs
"Swanscombe Marshes is a very important site for conserving and maintaining biodiversity . It deserves to be maintained against other frivolous desires for theme parks. This is the equivalent of a Constable or Turner painting and must be preserved for the sanity and health of our country our nature and our children"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Barlow
"This area is of vital importance to not only serves local Communities , but also the wider communities , who have all lost vital and significant places already, which were of special interest already through Local planning not realising the importance of smaller open green spaces for local people to help them thrive and maintain their mental health and wellness, this has become more apparent since the Pandemic, this area in Kent is already suffering from affects of over building and loss of historic sites, which are now forever consigned now to history books, we need living History and a living Area for our Nature and for this not to just be lost forever. We already suffer Highest levels of Pollution , having 3 crossings of the Thames locally , which cause gridlock, the roads here just can not take any further increase of Traffic to visit , this development will not enhance the area will not provide much needed well paid employment for local people, will just be more zero hours or part time work that families can not survive on , we need to think about the Environment for all People, the quality of life for all, not just for present but for the future, to have a special area to go to and be able to stay and connect with the natural world around them. As we are fast becoming a shut in community, with nowhere to actually witness the Natural World and Nature in reality, we owe it to not only the wild life which we are losing increased amounts daily their habitats , marshland is so vital for their Survival and us Humans who benefit from safe open spaces to enjoy. are involved with or become involved with protecting and improving this site. I hope you can consider the Impact the loss of such a precious area will have not only on the Important Wildlife that is being pushed out , but also for mankind. We must start finding better ways of co existing with Nature and not just continue to turn these areas into more concrete tarmac covered potential white elephants. when there already are a range of resorts for families to have days out to visit . This is far too big a risk to take on its viability as a resort that people will want to come too especially as road links are already problematic and woeful for local people getting around daily, it is just not the right area to justify its place in building , would be different had Ebbfleet and other local areas had not already been so heavily built up. People in this area are desperate for a place to afford them some freedom and pleasure in the natural beauty of nature and wildlife have to offer, this is after all the best entertainment and experiences a person can want as it is free given to us by creation and not invention."
Members of the Public/Businesses
D Saunders
"I would like to make it known that I object to the use of green land for a new, or any development. The proposed new facilities, are not needed and would take away more green land (regardless of whether the public has access or not). The environment is an extremely important matter to all of us, particularly given the current state of the climate change issues being faced. The loss of any further green land is the reverse of what should be happening, creating a greener, cleaner environment for the benefit of the planet and the lives that depend on it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Craib
"We have lost so many green fields and agriculture lands and wild flower meadows we most stop before leave a dedicated planet to future generations"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David John Pritchard
"Globally there is an environmental emergency. The UK is one of the most nature deprived countries. Building on what little remains is NOT the way forward. Please, please watch David Attenborough. Dave P.."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Linnell
"I am emailing you express my concern over the proposal to build the London Resort theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula, which supports an outstanding range of wildlife; indeed Natural England have recommended it be declared an SSSI – it forms a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. To illustrate its importance, it supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. It is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. It is also home to 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 3 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. As if this was not enough to secure its safety, it also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Long
"I am extremely concerned that this important wildlife site is under threat from a fun park Natural England considers it to be a sufficiently rich ecosystem, to grant it Site of Special Scientific Interest designation. If we can’t conserve even these special places, in the face of the alarming losses of our wildlife, then what hope is there. I understand that there are a number of endangered plants and animals across the site and to destroy their habitat in one of the most nature depleted countries on the planet, would be sheer madness. It’s time to turn the tide and stop destroying our countryside before it’s too late. This Government has committed to reversing the loss of biodiversity, but wiping out this precious site flies in the face of that promise. PLEASE do NOT allow this misplaced and utterly destructive development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek West
"I wish to object to the proposed Swanscombe Marshes development plans, at a time of unprecedented loss of bio-diversity, to consider damaging this unique and special area for the construction of a theme Park is beyond belief. Future generations would never forgive , for this act of vandalism. Others will describe better than I, it's flora and fauna, which deserve the utmost protection."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Ruthven
"I am very concerned about the proposed development of the Swanscombe Peninsula into a theme park. This development will jeopardise this very special area of land which supports a huge range of wildlife and is by no means just wasteland. Any development no matter how supposedly sustainable will risk destroying this wild habitat for birds, invertebrates and plants in an environment which includes coastal habitats, grasslands, wetlands and scrubland. All areas of land desperately in short supply in the uk compared to many European countries. Numerous recent surveys and research has found our wildlife and biodiversity to be in a parlours state. Let’s reverse that decline, celebrate this area, and preserve it for future generations, not desecrate it in the name of commercial development. Nature England has recommended the site be protected as a site of special scientific interest. This recommendation should be implemented. It supports over 250 invertebrate species which are on the risk list, including the critically endsngered Distinguished Jumping Spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. It is an area of rich bird breeding including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance, including marsh harriers, bearded tits, nightingales and black redstarts. What is more 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, water vole and otter. Please reconsider the decision to give permission to build a theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Andrew Coates
"Extensive building developments should not be permitted on important wildlife sites, especially SSRIs. We have a biodiversity crisis, and new buildings should be on brownfield sites only."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Chris Gibson
"Before early retirement, I worked for more than 30 years in statutory nature conservation, much of that time protecting such sites on the north bank of the Thames. I have never seen such a biodiverse patch of our country as Swanscombe, across a range of taxonomic groups, a wonderful mosaic of previously developed and semi-natural habitats, a multitude of species, common and rare, native and non-native, a melting pot of diversity. Any arguments about biodiversity net gain in respect of the proposal are spurious because the one thing that cannot be recreated is time, time over which such a rich, and frankly unique fauna and flora can develop. The wildlife needs this location, and reflects the continuity of its history. Therefore, to site a theme park here is wholly inappropriate; it is something which does not need it be here. It could be built anywhere, and there are many better places where it can go if such a development is ‘so’ important that it is correctly considered as nationally significant (a classification which I personally challenge – a glorified ‘funfair’ can never be considered thus). Indeed, I would argue that it should not either be considered ‘infrastructure’ – in the sense that it is not necessary for the providing of basic life needs of food, air, water or energy. Given that Natural England has decided that the evidence of its ecological value is such that it should be designated SSSI, it is essential now at the very least that the proposed developers must be instructed to resubmit their proposal in light of the fact that Swanscombe’s natural value as a nationally important asset has been correctly recognised. Ideally the Panning Inspectorate would, in recognition of the now clear and irrefutable evidence of the natural values of the site, refuse to take consideration of the scheme any further forward."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Hazel Jackson
"As a country that wants to demonstrate leadership in tackling the nature and climate crises, the demolition of a significantly important (and soon to be designated SSSI by Natural England) mosaic of important habitats which play home to a large number of species, many of which are rare and in decline shows poor judgement, and understanding of the seriousness we all face through the devastating decline of biodiversity and climate change. We are hosting COP, and with potential targets for nature currently being considered by Westminster, it's shocking that the destruction of such a valuable site for nature even being considered for destruction for a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Michael Fulton
"Natural England has recognised the area as a nationally-important wildlife haven by designating it as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), please do not let it now be damaged or destroyed by this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Michele Becker
"In this time of vast biodiversity loss it is highly important that places like Swanscombe Marshes are protected from any form of development. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands which are so important for wildlife that Natural England have recommended that it become a SSSI. The area has a large number of breeding birds many of which are red-listed. It is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps as well as 13 nationally scarce vascular plants. Surely a theme resort could be built elsewhere. Humans are dependent on the natural world and destroying it for gain leads to many problems as we have found out in the last tweve months. Please think again and do not destroy this unique site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
E A Oldham
"I am objecting to the theme park plan because Swanscombe Marshes is home to red listed (ie endangered) birds and many other important species. It has just been declared an SSSI. The UK is losing green spaces and our natural heritage at an alarming rate and the here is no justification for prioritising a theme park over our wild and important spaces. They are not only important in their own right but as places for people to unwind and reconnect with the natural world, something which is so important for mental and physical well being"
Members of the Public/Businesses
E M Bissmire
"This is an important site for nature conservation and the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the ecological integrity of the site by virtue of disturbance, noise, pollution and destruction of habitat. The proposal should be refused planning consent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eileen E Bartlett
"This area should be declared a site of Special Scientific Interest. It is home to rare species of flora and fauna which should be protected. It is home to many varieties of birds which are on the red endangered list and could be extinct soon. People need these areas of wildlife and green space to help with their mental well being. Swanscombe Marshes should be left for nature not used for building artificial theme parks. This site is special with its coastal habitats, scrub land and grass land. We need to keep it special and build the theme park elsewhere on some brown field site which would benefit from a clean up, not on beautiful green landscapes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Nichols
"As a local resident of Swanscombe I have often been to the peninsula for walks and have always enjoyed the varied landscape it provides. It has been a haven for me during the pandemic, giving me a safe place to get out and enjoy nature, whilst exercising somewhere you can easily keep socially distant from others. I have found it immensely beneficial to my mental health, being able to get out in a green place and see nature all around. I have been able to see many different species of birds and have developed an interest in wildlife photography from my experiences on the peninsula. It is amazing how many birds are living on the peninsula, breeding there, or using it as a part of their migration route and yet this development would have a massive negative impact on them, which would be a catastrophe. I remember my own excitement the first time I saw a kestrel hunting over the reeds (in an area that this proposed development would see built over), or when I first saw a pair of marsh harriers that are known to breed at the site. Seeing these birds of prey living locally to me was a privilege and one that could be lost if this development goes ahead. Time spent on the peninsula lets you really appreciate the value of the many different habitats this area provides and all the animals, bird, insects and plants that are thriving because of its unique layout. Including nationally rare and endangered species of spiders, bees, beetles and other invertebrates. This area has just become an SSSI due to its immense value to wildlife and as such it deserves to be protected so that everyone can enjoy it but also more importantly so that the lives of the creatures that depend on it can continue. People are more aware now of the negative effects human activity is having on wildlife and the environment, how can we afford to lose yet another amazing and irreplaceable natural place just for a theme park. Especially seeing as this year the UK will be hosting the G7 Summit and this government has stated that they will put biodiversity loss at “the centre of our plans”. How can this development go ahead seeing as it will destroy such a biodiverse area, one that has been recognised as significant and even been given SSSI status based on this. This is just the wrong place for this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary Northeast
"It is my firm belief that this hugely important wildlife site should remain so. In these days of terrifying climate heating and the devastating loss of wildlife and biodiversity, the last thing we need is to be ripping up critically important areas such as this in order to build a frivolous and damaging project such as an "amusement park, along with the increased traffic and subsequent generation of yet more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gemma Baron
"The proposed development of the London Resort theme park at Swanscombe Marshes threatens this exceptionally important site for wildlife, and should not go ahead. The varied natural habitats here provide home for critically endangered species such as the Distinguished jumping spider, along with a whole host of other rare plants, insects, birds, reptiles and mammals. It's recent designation as a Site of Special Scientific Interest highlights it's huge importance for habitats and species in the UK. Natural spaces like this are not just important for the environment, but for the health and wellbeing of local people who can enjoy this site. There is a growing body of evidence which shows a clear link between access to nature and wildlife and good health. In the challenging times we are living through, this is more important than ever. Wildlife sites like Swanscombe are already rare and under threat from human activity across the UK. Given the current global climate and biodiversity crisis, looking after places like Swanscombe should be a priority. Swanscombe Marshes should be protected from development now and in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoff Vine
"Swanscombe provides an open mosaic of habitats ie grassland, wetlands, scrub etc. Now that the site has been made an SSSI there is more reason to protect the area from development. Some important invertebrate species as well as vascular plants, birds, reptiles, bats and otters etc. With so many aspects of nature in decline it is more important than ever to protect our network of SSSI's and the wider countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Baker
"I support the development in principle but have a number of concerns relating to impact on the Swanscombe and Greenhithe area. Whilst parts of the site have now been designated as an SSSI, I defer to expert opinion on this issue. Key points I wish to raise are: • Do the requirements attached to the draft DCO adequately constrain the development to environmental limits considered within the Environmental Statement – in particular in relation to maximum visitor numbers; hours of operation; traffic generation; noise and light pollution etc? • Are the scale, form and massing of proposed structures close to existing areas appropriate, having regard to context and the amenity of adjoining occupiers? Could the car park at Galley Hill be reconfigured? Have potential wind effects of this structure on the A226 Galley Hill Road been assessed? • Day time visualisations should be revisited to understand impacts on Galley Hill Church/ adjoining flats etc – photos taken from behind bushes are unhelpful. Night-time visualisations are poor and do not provide sufficient information to understand impacts on locations within Swanscombe, closer to the site. Illustrative lighting of rides should also be shown, unless otherwise precluded. • What lighting will be required during hours of darkness for safety/security when the resort is closed – will impacts (including on biodiversity) be controlled through the DCO? • Has the impact on designated and non-designated heritage assets been adequately considered and adverse impacts addressed or mitigated? Where compensatory measures are required to offset harm, could these be negotiated through the s.106 agreement with the involvement of local stakeholders? • Has the impact of the proposal on the highway and public rights of way network on the peninsula have been adequately addressed? This is with particular reference to the status of Manor Way and Lower Road. Does the draft DCO adequately cover these aspects? • Does the approach to transport adequately deal with potential issues for the immediate local area? This particularly in relation to traffic generation, control of off-site parking and public transport provision? Does the draft DCO provide adequate safeguards to ensure that unacceptable adverse impacts are controlled? • How will the issue of Swanscombe Station be dealt with in terms of providing a fully DDA complaint access not only to the resort but also the training centre/visitor centre in a timely fashion? Does this raise Equalities Act considerations and how will the delivery of necessary upgrades be secured? • 500 flats are proposed to relieve pressure on the local housing market – when will delivery of this be secured by requirement/legal agreement and will a mechanism be put in place to ensure that accommodation is reserved solely for staff? • The proposed staff accommodation may place additional pressure on recreational facilities in the immediate area – mainly provided by the local Town Council. How will these pressures be mitigated? • Securing bio-diversity net gain will require significant off-site mitigation. Will the developer make a commitment to secure some of this locally to deliver an enhanced network of Green Infrastructure that will directly benefit local people? How can this be secured?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Taylor
"Swanscombe Marshes, now quite rightly designated as a SSSI site has a diversity of natural interests that is very important and why anyone would even think of destroying it in this age of destruction of so much that is vital, is extraordinary. I would urge you strongly to keep Swanscombe Marshes as it is for the likes of myself and others to enjoy its rich heritage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Godfrey Beaumont
"Dear Inspectorate The world is on a downward spiral for the environment and subsequently the economy, let alone human misery. We the British need to show the world, and lead by example, in preserving all types of habitat especially areas such as Swanscombe containing rare species. This treadmill, searching for wealth and power must bend towards the future of mankind. Please preserve this marshland. I have personally donated to trust for the next 125 years then to be managed by a wildlife Trust, an area of 3 hectares (small but a value of £100,000, as a pensioner its a large sum. My Very best regards Godfrey Beaumont"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Campbell-Thomas
"I sincerely believe that the area known as Swancombe Marshes should be protected as a SSSI, my reasons for this belief is that it is an area that supports a number of rare or threatened species, perhaps more than on any other brownfield site, this includes the Critically Endangered Jumping Spider (Attalid distinguendus). I know from personal experience that brownfield sites have special value. I was involved in spearheading a campaign to prevent a brownfield site here in York being developed by the local council in the mid 80s into an industrial site with houses. That 10 hectare (24 acres) is now one of York’s LNRs (local nature reserves) and has now been held up as an example of community action and wildlife habitat that has endeared itself to the public of York and dare I suggest even wider. I know the area of Swanscombe Marsh when I used to live on the other side of the Thames, as an amateur entomologist I used to visit the site before moving north. I see no profit, apart from purely financial in destroying this unique wildlife haven."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grace Brennan
"Wildlife across the UK is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures. Large natural areas like this are precious as the climate declines; we need them to absorb carbon, filter soils and help with flood mitigation, not add to the problem by building on them. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham Reeve
"If the recent covid situation has taught us anything, it is the importance of preserving nature for its own sake as well as for our own. Swanscombe is a unique mixture of habitats giving all sorts of wildlife a chance to cling on which is perhaps more important now than ever before in this period of decline on natural spaces everywhere. I personally don't think we need a theme park as much as we need these increasingly rare wild places - especially given its location so close to the capital."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hilary Reilly
"Although I do not live nearby, I am gravely concerned about the drastic decline in wildlife across the whole country. As a nurse who has worked non-stop throughout this pandemic, I was kept sane by nature in my own back garden and the walks round local beauty spots, and it has been proved that being able to access nature helped others' mental health and well being. The thought of losing yet more beautiful land ( whichNatural England have recommended be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest) is utterly devastating. Swanscombe houses over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. It is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid, as well as having locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Surely these little lives are worth more than another theme park, there must be some other derelict land which could house this monstrosity. Please do not lose yet more precious lives and beautiful land, please preserve this area for what nature intended, and let people continue to enjoy the area for a long time to come."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Holder
"I am extremely concerned for the future of wildlife on this site and across the UK. It has just been designated as a SSSI due to its wildlife value and this should mean that it is fully protected from such frivolous developments. The UK is already one of the most wildlife-depleted countries in the world - let's not make it worse. It is home to many red-listed invertebrates, birds and plants and should not be bulldozed for the financial benefit of the development company or the jollification of visitors in the future. The pandemic has taught many of us the value of nature to our physical and mental wellbeing - it is critical that we protect what we still have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Robson
"I am concerned to hear about the proposed plans to build a theme park on Swanscombe Peninsula. The peninsula is an area that has a mosaic of different habitats and supports a range of wildlife, from over 250 species of invertebrates, birds, plants and more. A lot of which are rare nationally. Wildlife is in decline across the country and it is more important than ever that we protect it. Not only is this site important for nature but also for people for recreation, health and well being. Areas to walk and enjoy fresh air and come into contact with nature have been so important this past year for all of us. I live in []and visiting the peninsula has kept me sane. What other areas like this do we have locally? When we were told to stay local where else could we find somewhere like this to escape to? This is the wrong place to build a theme park. We need to look after these pockets of the natural world and not build on them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isobel Shorrock
"There are many accounts from the scientific community regarding the devastating effects od desecration wildlife habitats. Homo Sapiens is wrecking this planet and planning bodies tend to pay lip service to that. Now is the time to do something about it. There cannot be any justification for building on this site that is recognised by Historic England as an SSSI. 'The Jump' on Radio 4 described how disruption of habitats leads to the spread of zoonotic disease. We need to start acting differently and the ball lies in the planning inspectorate court. Listen to the science."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Arscott
"I grew up near Swanscombe & feel strongly about the proposed development of the marshes. The area is a mix of coastal, scrub, grassland & wetlands & provides an essential habitat for many species of wildlife in an area not particularly known for it's wild landscapes. It should be an SSSI because it is home to some 250 invertebrate species including rare & endangered bees, wasps, beetles & spiders (including the Distinguished jumping spider which is Critically Endangered & only found in one other location). It is a superb breeding bird habitat - home to many red-listed birds of Conservation Concern & Principal Importance. It has Marsh Harriers! That fact alone should save it from development. The amount of wildlife living in what developers undoubtedly call "wasteland", in an area of the country which is already being built upon in an unsustainable way, should be reason enough to leave it alone. If a theme park is really needed in the UK then surely it should be in the north of England as part of the so-called Northern Powerhouse vision. It is not needed in the over-crowded south east. What is needed is retention & protection of our open spaces, natural habitats & dwindling wildlife. The people of the south east deserve to see Marsh Harriers in their local area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Gornall
"I realise the project would bring a lot of jobs to the area but surely there’s a way to protect the marshes? We are supposed to be setting a good international example with the environmental meeting in Glasgow this year and this project flies in the face of that. The south east in particular is being eradicated under a sea of concrete what with all the housing estates being built and this country has one of the worst records when it comes to protecting nature."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Aunins
"I believe that Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife and is crucial for the wildlife depends on it, as it is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England has recommended that Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest and we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make this site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance, including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart, and 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. (Please see the “Rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula” which was presented to Natural England in February.) So much of our precious wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to conserve our precious wildlife habitat. Too much is being lost for frivolous and unnecessary reasons. The Swanscombe Peninsula is absolutely the wrong place for a theme park and we must value our precious and endangered wildlife more than we do something so frivolous and completely unnecessary as a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Barriskill
"London Resort theme park should not happen if you want to do this improve Margate which already has a theme park and look how that has turned out. Swanscombe Marshes should be left to the wild life. The government is paying farmers to rewild areas of their farms as it will be a disaster if we allow so much building that wild life will disappear and that will be a disaster for human beings. They are part of the ecosystem and are very important. Swanscombe Marshes should be improved so people who live near there can go to the marshes for their well being and mental health that is so important as the area is so built up already. I have family who live near this area and know how important it is for them as a nature reserve. Developers get these grand ideas which in the end do nothing to help the community. This site has recently been designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest so please honour and respect it as a Site of Special Scientific Interest."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janice Minich
"I think this site is of great importance to insects of various types, some only found in one other place in our country and do NOT want this to be destroyed by building anything on it at all. Our wildlife is already struggling to find homes and we humans should have more respect for their environment instead of building pleasure parks. Pleasure can be taken by enjoying what is already there, no additions needed. I am hoping to visit the Swansconbe site next year when we should be able to safely travel."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeffery Hacon
"I am writing to ask you to protect an SSSI. We all know that nature is under tremendous pressure at the moment. There is a serious biodiversity crisis and we are loosing species in UK at an allarming rate. Therefore the loss of any SSSI is a matter of great concern to me. Swanscombe Marshes holds many species of concervation concern including Attulus distinguendus found at only 1 other site in UK. It also holds rare plants like ther beautiful man orchid. The site also protects water voles, otters and intersting birds including the declining nightingale and bearded reedlings. Consequently I do not believe that this is a suitable site for a theme park. I am sure that a theme park could be built somewhere else"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Haddon
"The charity buglife and others of its kind for example the wildlife trust has designated this specific site on which you have chosen to build upon as a SSI area. There are creatures here which you can't find anywhere else in the UK. The destroy an important home for nature for a theme park is porpostrous. The sheer lack of respect for nature being shown is astonishing, when British wildlife is in serious decline and new green targets set by governments have been issued, it is a giant leap away from benefiting the interests of the public and the world as a whole. There are other good theme parks which people can visit and enjoy without detrementing a nature recovery. The UK has a 60% decline in its wildlife and its the fastest drop in Europe. If we don't act now to protect our green spaces, swancombe marshes particularly, which I remind you is an area of serious scientific interest, what hope is there for a natural recovery. What you call progress, I call the rape of the natural world."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Makin
"I am delighted that the wildlife site at Swancombe has been designated as a SSSI thus acknowledging the unique value of this very special wildlife site. How fortunate we are to have it and personally, with family living close by, I feel a strong bond to this site. I believe it must be protected for the Nation and for future generations. We know how important it is that we protect our fragile planet and in particular the many species that are endemic to this area. Just listen to the warnings of David Attenborough about the perils our planet is facing so it is important that we all do what we can to heal it. It is unthinkable that an area that we are so lucky to have has to defend itself from the onslaught and disastrous plans of a theme park which the developers claim will attract thousands of visitors. I cannot think of two projects less likely to blend together. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so dangerous. I am also of the view that it will not be as attractive as the builders claim. Post Covid people will review their leisure activities and many will not be prepared to engage with crowds so it is possible it will be a white elephant despite the damage it may have caused. Please reject this planning application and show your support for protecting our natural world and the only planet we currently have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jess Hall
"It has recently come to my attention that the planning permission for building the London resort on the area of Swanscombe marshes has been approved. This deeply saddens me as it supports a massive variety of wildlife such as the critically endangered distinguished jumping spider and other rare invertebrates. As many of these species can only be found on a couple of sites it will push them closer to extinction if this site is built. Building over Swanscombe will also destroy the habitat for various other species such as bats, otters,water voles and rare birds of prey. As you will all be aware climate change is having a huge impact on our planet and the need for green space is hugely increasing. This not only helps nature thrive but it's good for the local communities as it helps improve people's mental health and it is hugely beneficial for small children to learn about respecting wildlife and identifying different spieces. I ask you not as a local but as a nature lover and environmentalist to consider your actions before you build this theme park. Why do we need another one? Can we build on another area which isn't protected land. I hope you can find it in your hearts to leave Swanscombe marshes alone. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jill Wyatt
"We are living in a time when our actions now determine the future of the planet. I strongly object to the proposal on the grounds that it entails destroying a very important site for wildlife, including many species which are already endangered. This area is unique in the mix of habitats and its loss would be a disaster. Any site which is recommended to be an SSSI is obviously the wrong place to build a theme park, and the proposal would be a major step in the opposite direction from the one in which we must travel. In the year when the UK is hosting the Cop26 summit, granting permission for an area like the Swanscombe Peninsula, which is so important for nature, to have a theme park built over it would be a national embarrassment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
JM Kelly
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It is imperative we protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Fitz-Henry
"Swanscombe has already been recognised as a SSSI by Natural England. This is a unique mixture of diverse habitats and supports many forms of wildlife. The South East needs its wild places and not another theme park under a carpet of concrete. This is such an ecologically unfriendly development - the noise and light pollution combined with the exhaust fumes from the extra traffic will also impact on the surrounding areas for both people and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Small
"The plans for a theme park on this site concern me because wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures and wild spaces. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. Please do not give further consideration to these plans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joe Annandale
"Hello I am local to Kent and a wildlife enthusiast, with wildlife in a shocking decline everywhere in the country, my county has been hit very hard by urbanization. There are developments of thousands of houses in former greenbelt land. Unique wildlife is taking a back seat. I am surprised that in an area where many rare insects, birds and mammals this development is even being considered with no regard for the local wildlife populations that again are being ignored. The development makes no provision for the animals that call this place home and for the humans that go there and enjoy the natural beauty of it. Please reconsider. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joe Parker
"I live locally to the Swanscombe peninsula and have previously worked on the industrial estate too. I regularly walk with my family in the area and we spend time as a family on the peninsula observing the wonderful variety of wildlife that live there. In spring we go to the peninsula to hear the Nightingales sing. These are an endangered bird and destroying their habitat and creating a theme park would be a catastrophe! Wildlife is disappearing at an alarming rate in the UK. We really need to preserve it and not build a theme park on an area that supports so much wildlife. I am aware that the London Resort claim that they will increase biodiversity, but how can they increase biodiversity of such a rich wildlife habitat that supports more invertebrate species and birds than anywhere else in the region by building a theme park on it? The London Resort do not have the best interests of the wildlife or of maintaining open green spaces for the community, they are there to make money for a few lucky individuals. Many full-time jobs for local people will be lost when the businesses on the industrial estate are forced out of the area and they will be replaced with seasonal low paid jobs. This does not make sense? I appreciate the chance to give my feedback and hope that you make the right decision."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Burthe
"Dear sir/madam, I am baffled as to how this project can go ahead. In a time when biodiversity and environmental sustainability are on a knife edge, when we need to be promoting and increasing our wild places in order to bring back balance to tge natural world. This is a SSSI area with endangered species of plant and Insect. How can this be over looked in favour of a hand full of people making a load of money. This is capitalism at its worst. The UK is one of the most heavily depleted counties in terms of wildlife. I beg you, for the good of the planet, our future and for future generations. Put a stop to this rediculously destructive, frivolous and unnecessary development. Regards, John"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Chapman
"This area supports many rare plant species and populations of Otter, Water Vole, Reptiles and Bats. This site is favoured by breeding birds, which include Nightingales, Black Redstart, Marsh Harriers and Bearded Tits. It also supports in excess of 250 invertebrates, some of which are endangered species. Taking into account all these facts, we should be supporting areas such as this, not only for the present generation, but for those to come and justification for building a theme park on this site is totally irresponsible and unnecessary. This is our chance to give life back to nature."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Ignatius Wareham Paterson
"Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John McCrea
"We do not need another theme park, we need to preserve as much of existing habitat as possible- with the world heating up and the threat to the whole world, we must take a stand as a country and invest in our green spaces- Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. Once gone, we cannot get them back. Please make the right choice and do not allow a theme park here. Best John McCrea"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josephine Brown
"It is unbelievable to me as a local resident that anyone could think of building such infrastructure at this location. It is a SSSI area with animal and plant wildlife that has value beyond measure. Concreting over Kent has become the mantra for this government. I appeal to you to stop before it is too late for ‘The Garden of England ‘ ! Who in their right mind would chose to visit a pleasure park in Swanscombe anyway ! Please, Just leave this special site for future generations who care about the environment and the future. Money cannot take president."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Hible
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. I am concerned that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. The Swanscombe Peninsula is an exceptional and exemplar site in a unique location within the ecological context of the Thames Estuary. Swanscombe has been shown to meet SSSI selection criteria, with regards to typicalness, fragility, size, diversity, ecological coherence, and the rarity of both species and habitats supported. OMHPDL (Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously developed Land) habitats have suffered from significant losses in the Thames Estuary, despite supporting a nationally important invertebrate assemblage, with 51% of key brownfield sites lost, damaged or under threat from an existing permission between 2007 and 2013, and potential losses continuing with Tilbury 2, the redevelopment of Arena Essex and proposed Swanscombe Peninsula developments. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The State of Nature 2019 found : Of the 7,615 species found in England that have been assessed using the IUCN Regional Red List criteria, and for which sufficient data were available, 971 (13%) are currently threatened with extinction from Great Britain (England-specific assessments are not available). England still contains a range of internationally important habitats, such as its lowland heathlands, ancient woodlands and chalk grasslands in the south, the blanket bogs along the Pennines, and the coastal estuaries and saltmarshes, while sea cliffs and offshore islands support internationally important numbers of breeding seabirds."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith King
"Swanscombe Peninsula has just been designated as an SSSI. It's a biodiverse site which is home to many rare birds, plants, and invertebrates, as well as locally important animal populations. I'm particularly concerned about the invertebrates. Insects are in decline globally. Swanscombe has 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including nationally endangered bees, spiders, beetles and wasps, and the critically endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider. Habitat like this when lost cannot be replaced. Please ensure that it is preserved for future generations. They need Swanscombe as it is, not yet another theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Carol Rudd
"With more and more of our country being given over to buildings and roads, with the state of the British flora and fauna, with the present climate of antipathy towards the causes of Global Warming, I feel the move to build on Swanscombe Marshes is very short sighted on the part of the authorities, especially as the area has recently become an SSSI. There are plenty of brown sites around London that could benefit from development. Why not use one of them?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
June Avison
"Does London really need this or does London need nature and the natural environment? It beggars belief that such a development could even be considered let alone get to this stage. I object strongly and urge you not to grant planning permission."
Members of the Public/Businesses
K Etheridge
"Important places for nature, and for people to enjoy nature are precious these days. I’m sure this site is better as a nature reserve for people’s physical and mental health than if it were turned into a theme park! It is an SSSI and as such should receive the protection laid down for such."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Arscott
"Dears, I was concerned to learn that planning is being considered for a building project on the Swanscombe peninsula. Such a development would have a devastating impact on the wildlife of Swanscombe marshes, which were recommended to become an SSSI very recently This area is home to some of our scarcest invertebrates and birdlife, it is a an area that should be protected and conserved for the benefit of all of us, not built on! Surely there are other more suitable sites that could be considered. We have too few such habitats remaining unspoilt in the UK and to knowingly destroy those that remain seeks to be madness. Please reconsider, this is a beautiful site that should be preserved for the future enjoyment of all."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Denton
"The building works being undertaken at Ebbsfleet Garden City have already destroyed trees, plants and bird/animal habitats and the scenario will be even worse if the Swanscombe peninsula is destroyed by paramount. The marshes contain many birds, animals, amphibians, insects and spiders that will never be able to be protected or removed if their area is destroyed. We must protect these environments and our green space and nature. It is beautiful for walking. In addition the traffic and pollution caused will be awful for local residents and nature. I recognise it will bring jobs and tourism, with money to the government but at what cost? I am against this development absolutely."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Boston- Williams
"I am very concerned about yet another example of loss of natural habitat in this country especially at a time when climate change and protection of the natural world is high on the world agenda. My father was Nature Warden for Swanscombe amongst other places in Kent during the 70s and 8Os. He worked so hard and fought so many battles to protect these places because he understood their importance. The flora and fauna is rich and diverse in this area because people like him defended it and allowed it to flourish. If it goes we can never get it back. We can’t let these habitats go just for financial gain."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Grant
"I’m concerned about this development and object to it. Natural England have declared the area a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It’s of national importance that these sites are protected and that the designation as a SSSI means something."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Dennis Gordon
"This site is a current stable safe environment for many species, some of which are in huge decline which is caused by loss of habitat all around the UK. With 15 red list species of nesting birds and 12 species of principal importance nesting birds living on this peninsula, any developments will have a negative effect. This site is currently able to self-support these species with little cost to maintain. The government is encouraging people to get out and exercise to help with their physical and mental health, and to help with the fight against this current pandemic. The Swanscombe peninsula has provided a much needed safe space for local people to use to exercise during the pandemic. Due to the unique layout of the area the wildlife is not negatively affected by the use of the local residents. If we do not protect this area from development now we will lose many species not just here in the UK but across the world due to the impact on the birds’ migration patterns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelsea Herbst
"I am writing to you regarding about the planning of a theme park. This would have devastating effects on wildlife & biodiversity at Swancombe. I think wildlife is more important than a theme park. There is enough theme parks in the UK. Please reconsider this and the devastating impacts this would have on our wildlife. This is extremely unnecessary and shows the selflessness of people who support a theme park on such an important nature reserve. We are in a climate crisis as it is with out the need of silly infrastructures being built upon our precious reserves dedicated to wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
L Clark
"I personally really enjoy the wild, natural spaces near to where I live and the Swanscombe Peninsula is a special example as it supports an outstanding range of wildlife- and there are few enough places for our precious and human life supporting wildlife to survive now a days. It is wonderfully beneficial and inspiring to be in nature observing wildlife such as birds and insects a perfect and necessary antedate to city living. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I am extremely worried that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and that it is more important than ever to spare and care for our national treasure which cannot be replaced if lost.The Swanscombe Peninsula is clearly the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. Times have changed and commercial entertainment that returns nothing to real life, the long term health of humans and the natural world, is outdated. If it is to go ahead let this be on one of the many brown field sites with less or limited effects on native wildlife. Thank you. Yours sincerely, Lou Clark"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Mason
"Swanscombe supports nationally important Open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. In particular the brownfield habitat (OMHPD) is easily undervalued as waste ground but is extremely valuable for biodiversity. These large areas of habitat mosaics are exactly the kind of areas that the UK should be valuing for their contribution to helping us achieve our commitments to Climate change and Biodiversity targets, provide Ecosystem Services and build back greener. The importance of the habitats and species at Swanscombe is underlined by Natural England recommending that Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. The recent notification of the site as a SSSI make it essential that the application be re-submitted. Swanscombe supports a nationally important assemblage of ispecies including the Distinguished jumping spider, Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. As a botanist I have been privileged to visit the site and hope to do so again in the future to see some of the rare plants present at the site including Round-leaved Wintergreen, Common Sea-lavender, Sickle Medick, Sand Lucerne, Yellow Vetchling, Hairy Vetchling and Man orchid. Swanscombe has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Swanscombe peninsula is an inappropriate site for a theme park. Covid has shown us how important it is to take nature into account, how valuable it is to us and how we ignore it at our peril. Future pandemics could close a theme park or make it economically unviable and by then we would have lost the valuable habitats and species forever along with all of the economic services and benefits they provide. As a nation should we really be valuing short-term economic gains over long-term gains for biodiversity, climate and future generations well being? I would argue No, it does not make economic sense."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Gregory
"Dear Sirs I am dismayed to hear that planning application has been granted for a theme park to be built at Swanscombe. Natural England have stated that this site should be given SSSI protection as one of the most important and precious wildlife sites in the country. With 15 red-listed species of birds and 12 others given important status along with rare and precious reptiles, insects and plants, this area should be given protection from development and a more suitable site found for the park. In the midst of global warming and the threat to our wildlife and indeed ourselves surely a wildlife haven is more important than a theme park. Once Swanscombe has been destroyed it's wildlife will be gone forever. Please reconsider this most important matter for all our sakes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Pryke
"Swanscombe Marshes merits SSSI status and is a site for many invertebrate species of conservation concern. The assemblage of habitats at the site is unique, and have developed over time. They cannot be replicated elsewhere. I had lived in Swanscombe for some years and have seen much of the open land and habitats importance in the area already lost to major developments: housing, Ebbsfleet rail terminal, Bluewater shopping centre etc. In addition, I am concerned that at a time of climate change and increased flood risk in the Thames Estuary, hard landscaping and the inevitable flood protection required by the development will detrimentally affect Londons' abilities to resist flooding events."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Pratt
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucy Williams
"I am very much opposed to the destruction of the SSSI on the Swanscombe Peninsula as, in addition to being of national significance, this marshland is locally very important to the people living in the area and to the whole Thames estuary area. The marshes are hugely important for migratory and resident species. Having sailed up the Thames and crossed this area many times on the train to London I am very aware of what an oasis in an otherwise urban area it is. This area will also be severely affected by sea level rise so is short-sighted from that perspective as well. I accept that some people will be pleased to have a theme park on their doorsteps but these places can be built anywhere - and the former airport site at Manston in Kent would be one suitable place. The greatest benefit will go to the developers and the profits will not be distributed in the local area. Building such a retrogressive development on one of the few green field sites close to London is unconscionable and the space is not big enough to divide into a space for wildlife and a space for the theme park. Constructing the site would also require a great deal of local disturbance and carbon release during the construction. The natural space at Swanscombe is quite literally irreplaceable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lyn May
"I am writing to ask that this area remain protected as it provides a precious landscape which includes ,coastal habitats,grassland,scrub and wetlands. This environment provides for the ideal environment for many invertebrates including Bees and the Jumping Spider. It is home to Marsh Harriers,Nightingales,Redstarts and the Bearded Tit. It provides for the prevalence of Bats,Water Voles and many other creatures that we need to keep to ensure biodiversity. We owe to future generations to ensure that these creatures and landscapes remain intact and are allowed to continue into the future. Please do not throw away such an inheritance."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynne Henderson
"Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter (my favourite British mammal )"
Members of the Public/Businesses
M Meyer-Masterson
"Natural England declaring that it should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), confirming it as one of our country’s best wildlife sites. So I am asking the Planning Inspectorate, and ultimately the Secretary of State, to please understand just how important the Swanscombe Peninsula is for its precious wildlife and the local communities that depend on it. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Storey
"Swanscombe is a wonderful mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands supporting over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. It is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Swanscombe Peninsula is just the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than theme parks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Harrison
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe a SSSI- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. The bird list includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marina Jirotka
"The Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife and is incredibly important for the wildlife depends on it. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I am so concerned that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline with many species facing potential extinction, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marion Fisher
"I am convinced that Swanscombe Marshes need to be recognised as a SSSI, and should not be used for development of any sort. Marshlands are an altogether too rare habitat in Britain, so many having been lost through drainage over the centuries. We are now realising how important they are for many species found nowhere else, for flood defences and capturing carbon. Developing this area would release stored carbon and significantly increase contributing to climate change. We must not allow this to happen, this flies in the face of the aim to 'build back better and greener'. A brownfield site elsewhere would be a much preferred option for the proposed theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Feeney
"Natural England have declared Swanscombe a Site of Special Scientific Interest, showing how important its wildlife is. It is acknowledged that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline and this is particularly so for invertebrates. It is more important than ever to protect our most fragile wildlife sites. If designations such as SSSI are just ignored, the whole system of environmental protection is undermined and devalued. The theme park can go elsewhere – the wildlife cannot. The Swanscombe Peninsula is the wrong place for this development. Many people, not just local to Swanscombe, but nationally, will be watching this decision to find out exactly what value the planning system places on our precious wildlife. Surely we must value our native wildlife and habitats more than we do a theme park?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matt Shardlow
"Almost every day we hear that species and habitats are in decline and international commitments to conserve biodiversity are being failed. The planning system has been a key part of this picture, but the NPPF is clear that: "if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last compensated for, then planning permission should be refused" Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and the adjacent MCZ support more species of conservation concern and IUCN red listed species than any other single site in the whole of the UK. This is possible because of the unique combination of high quality habitats in close proximity to each other. While London Resorts have been, and will continue to, make far-fetched claims relating to their ability to protect, restore or recreate the habitats, the truth is that it takes many decades for such habitats to develop and become suitable for maintaining populations of the most specialised and endangered species. Because the project will be unable to recreate the area and proximity of habitats that they are planning to destroy, it will inevitably cause significant harm to the nation's biodiversity. Species driven to extinction on this site cannot wait in limbo for 30 years until any mitigation habitat becomes suitable for them to remerge from extinction and occupy. This is the key issue to be determined and on it I hope that the inspector will pay particular attention to the expert views of independent scientists, NGOs representing wildlife and brownfield practitioners. If left with significant doubt that biodiversity harm can be avoided then the precautionary principle means that the SoS should act to ensure that the biodiversity is not exposed to the risk. The designation of the site as an SSSI has changed the parameters of the decision, in particular the NPPF is clear that: "development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted. The only exception is where the benefits of the development in the location proposed clearly outweigh both its likely impact on the features of the site that make it of special scientific interest, and any broader impacts on the national network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest;" As submitted the development plans and proposal do not address the key questions set out in this policy. The SSSI designation has established the interest features and the development has be be considered in respect to its likely impact on each one of them. The format and content of the current application do not enable this analysis or attempt to show how the development might outweigh its impacts on the SSSI. To enable a proper consideration of the SSSI implications the plans should be withdrawn and resubmitted. If this is not done then the process is likely to be judged to be flawed as key environmental information is unavailable. With the application now submitted it is clear that there is no nationally significant infrastructure associated with the development. The SoS should take the opportunity provided by the withdrawal of the application to address the SSSI designation to reconsider if his opinion about the NSIP status of the site should be revised. There does not seem to be any reason why the normal planning process could not be applied to the development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maxine Clift
"I totally object to the utilisation of Swanscombe for this purpose. Yet again the planning department appears to put the environment and a nationally important site as second best to development. This is totally unacceptable given the decimation we have seen over the years of our natural countryside and threats to species and habitat. If this approval goes ahead then it runs contradictory to the governments green plan and all uK efforts to reduce Co2 and protect and enhance our environment. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. A detailed rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula which was presented to Natural England in February 2021 and can be seen here https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2021/02/Swanscombe-SSSI-rationale-Feb-2021.pdf As a result Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest - who agree that we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. Whilst I don't live live locally to Swanscombe- I have spent many delightful times in the past walking around and spending time on the Peninsula; enjoying the wildlife and the natural habitat it supports. I am extremely concerned that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline across the UK, and that it is more important than ever to protect such nationally important sites. The fact that the Swanscombe Peninsula is even being considered as a suitable site for a theme park is totally unacceptable. I expect our planning inspectorate to help the public to protect our habitat and wildlife over and above profit and inappropriate development such as this. Please do not go ahead and support this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Meredith Muirhead
"Help stop the extinction of invertebrate species by respecting this SSSI. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Rozdoba
"I am concerned about environmental damage resulting from this application, should it be accepted. Given it has been recommended that Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, by Natural England, & given the UK has seen rapid, severe & sustained decline in wildlife & environmental stability, as reflected in the broader global biodiversity collapse & climate emergency crises, it would seem unwise to proceed with this development. Swanscombe Peninsula is not the right location for such a development because it is not the right location for any development. We must value nature. We are a part of nature & all our actions are intimately entwined with our one & only biosphere, upon which we depend for life. Swanscombe is a rich source of vitality, including endangered, rare & red-listed species. It needs to be cared for, not bulldozed, & not simply as we depend on sustained diversity of life for our own lives & environmental stability, but also because it provides a vital resource for recreation, offering a space that allows us to touch base with our own nature, aiding both physical & mental well-being. Please do not replace it with an artificial theme park. It would be a tragic irony to replace a living system with a "park" of metal & plastic, designed in part to mimic aspects of nature in order to appeal to visitors, when its construction was only possible through the destruction of the real thing. Let the developers finds another location for their park that is not already far richer with value than the intended replacement. Thank you for considering these issues. Blessed be in your decision making."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Sneyd
"Dear planning inspectorate, I am writing in regards to the proposed development of the London amusement park. My concern relates to the presence of abundant species of wildlife including several species that are in decline in the UK. The proposed development promises to protect and even increase biodiversity within the site but I believe that this is impossible to achieve in line with the services the park will offer. I believe the park will become a barrier which will not be crossed by nature and could well become disruptive to the inhabitants due to its noise and night time lighting. I believe this would reduce the number of species such as birds of prey which require large areas of undisturbed land to find food. I have several questions if I may, regarding the safety of the existing wildlife in regard to the developers proposed plans. As this site is an SSI, how would the wildlife be protected? Would the remaining land be actively managed by conservationists monitoring the wildlife? Would local residents still have access to walk around the area? Would the developer be open to producing an action plan alongside conservations in regard to preserving and improving the areas used by species that are in decline? How would the developers safeguard the habitat to prevent excess litter or damage caused by visitors? Being classed as a brownfield site, please would the developer share their environmental survey to allow a comparison with other surveys undertaken so we can establish median data? Thank you and I look forward to hearing from you Kind regards Michael Sneyd"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Lindson
"I am deeply concerned about this development. UK wildlife is at risk, yet a site deemed hugely important for wildlife is at risk from a theme park development. Even Natural England recommended Swanscombe to be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. We must protect the UK's most important wildlife sites from being lost! This development is almost laughable given the current situation we are in. Climate change is an immanent issue, it is quite literally a matter of life and death. Sites like Swanscombe Marshes are vital in helping to mitigate the impacts of human driven climate change. We have been through a life changing pandemic, leaving people's health and wellbeing more at risk that it was before. Nature is one of life's irreplaceable free forms of mental health support, something the local and wider community so desperately need. I work as a community outreach coordinator in urban green spaces in Tower Hamlets, London. I know how much green space means to people, and how it has limitless positive impacts on them, regardless of their background. Green spaces on many occasions literally save people's lives. This has to stop!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Jones
"Please consider that we cannot keep nibbling away at the natural environment which is so important to us all in order to keep the support that it provides to human as well as animal and insect needs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Molly Sendall
"Swanscombe supports 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern. It has been advised that it should be protected as an SSI. In this fragile world with all our concerns of global warming and species decline we should be putting in all our efforts into protecting and preserving our special areas like this. 15 red listed birds of conservation concern and 12 species of principal importance rely on this area. We need our special areas and wildlife more than another theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Molly Thompson
"Lack of biodiversity is one of the big drivers of the climate crisis!! Do not build another gas guzzler on an area of natural beauty. There will be no planet left to have fun on if you destroy nature. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Monica Davis
"I would ask that you consider carefully the implications that the building of a theme park on an area that is rich in wildlife. I live near to the Somerset Levels and belong to the Wildlife Trust and know the uniqueness of these wonderful places, for wildlife and for human beings too. Life is not all about Theme Parks etc, as has been proven in this Epidemic, people want places for to enjoy nature and feel peace. Theme Parks do not come into this category. I hope that you will listen to the people who feel very strongly about this type of planning."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Monica Masson
"In our already crowded area of Kent, our open spaces are precious; in particular those supporting multiple and increasingly rare wildlife. During the past year, many more people have used and enjoyed Swanscombe Peninsula in a responsible way and are horrified that this unique area, reclaimed by nature from previous industrial use, will be ruined by a theme park. The London Resort’s proposal to ‘enhance’ some of the marshland will not do - their massive disruption of the rest of the peninsula will destroy the links between the other isolated areas they say they will improve. In addition, the massive increase in traffic the resort will generate will not only gridlock our already often congested roads, it will add to the already very poor air quality in the area. The huge, largely imported, workforce needed for construction and then the intended visitors will put unsustainable pressures on other infrastructure such as our local health services and hospital. All at a time when COVID remains endemic for the foreseeable future. There is great scope and opportunity to make better use of the peninsula by developing it as a national marshland park for the benefit of wildlife (floral and fauna) and people."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicky Gregory
"I wish to object to the proposed theme park. I feel strongly that it is important to put the natural world before anything else. Because the Swanscombe Peninsula is so diverse in it is habitats it is home to a wide range of animals, birds and insects, some who live there and other who migrate. Because it is so important Natural England have asked for Swanscombe to be declared an SSSI, something I whole heartedly support. We are in danger of loosing many species of wildlife, the things that enable humans to live on the planet, we must protect the sanctuaries we have and increase them wherever possible. There are many endangered species, at Swanscombe from all areas of the natural world, making it even more precious. We are supposed to be reducing our carbon footprint! A theme park will do the opposite, not only the construction, but the people who would come to visit and the running of the actual enterprise. Swanscombe Peninsular is entirely the wrong place for a theme park which would devastate the local area and wildlife. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. PLEASE TURN DOWN THIS APPLICATION"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nigel Tuck
"The Swanscombe Marshes are a unique home to over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, and 49 red listed species, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider. It also supports a regionally important breeding bird site including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance, 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species, including 5 red-listed species, and populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. This country has already seen a catastrophic loss of natural habitat and consequently wildlife over the two decades, some of which has rendered species extinct. This is a planning application too far. It must be halted in its tracks. We must protect what we have before we lose it forever. This is not what we want to be remembered for as our legacy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pamela
"We should not build on SSI's as a matter of principal. Insects are an important cog in the evology of the country and just in my lifetime i have seen a catastrophic decline. We must not concrete over areas, of such importance"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Mason
"Wildlife and the environment are far more important for the future of the human race than a theme park. Please don’t allow anything to be built here, let us all enjoy the area as it is and learn about the precious natural environment. This area should be protected for future generations not filled with concrete and steel leading to further environmental destruction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Beech
"Dear Sir or Madam, I am deeply concerned about the preservation of Swanscombe Marshes as a haven for a huge variety of wildlife species, many of which are in danger of extinction. Though all are important, my main interest is in the insect life, especially the bees. Many people seem unaware of how vital insect life is to our own survival as a species: it is a fact that if the human race were to become extinct, the other life on the planet would happily survive; if the insects were to be wiped out, all higher forms of animal life would be doomed. Further, this area supplies endless interest to all people interested in the extraordinary diversity of the country's natural life. Please do not let it be destroyed. Yours sincerely Paul Beech"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pete Bibby
"My introduction to the natural world came via brownfield sites, their wonderful diversity an unexpected joy in a bleak post-industrial South Yorkshire landscape. Having seen their value I cannot but object to such a treasure being destroyed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pete Simpson
"My God. What has this country come to? On the one hand we have a government which tells us that it it is committed to the environment, biodiversity and wildlife and on the other we have this - exactly the opposite. What hypocrisy. It is truly disgraceful that this proposal is even being contemplated. It is disgraceful that anyone could wish to destroy the wildlife which exists here. It is disgraceful that we have to co-exist with individuals who dream up these proposals and are prepared to sacrifice the natural beauty of this country for profit. It makes me depressed and angry and ashamed to be British And what is worse is that such installations could be build on less valuable land. Slowly but very surely we are seeing our land decimated by those who simply do not care. Is there any point in us trying to educate these people in the value of nature? Perhaps not but someone needs to look very carefully at this and perhaps even look into their own hearts and to ultimately make the right decision which is to stop this monstrous proposal dead in its tracks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter C Lysaght
"I find it hard to believe that the proposal for a theme park has made it this far in light of the destruction and havoc it would wreak upon the area, with devastating effects on native flora and fauna, especially those already on red and at risk lists. Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife that depend upon it being left as a unique wildlife area for them to continue to flourish. Its uniqueness is what makes Swanscombe an area of outstanding natural beauty with coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. In support of the area, Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest and now is the time to step up our efforts to preserve and protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. It is home to nationally rare and endangered bees - our vital pollinators - spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. In addition to an astounding 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid, it also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, water vole and otters. We need conservation not destruction, and Swanscombe should be left to its native inhabitants which we as their protectors can enjoy, with the added benefit of increasing our wellbeing as we observe nature at work and at play"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Etheridge
"Swanscombe Marshes is an an important Wildlife site recently designated a SSSI and is a home for nationally endangered rare species. These sites are important for the health and well-being of inhabitants and essential for the introduction of wildlife to children. They also play an important part to climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Lawrence
"Natural England has recognised that Swanscombe should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It is a site of national importance because it supports so many endangered species of insects, red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and Species of Principal Importance as well as nationally rare plants. it would be a tragedy if this haven for wildlife and biodiversity was replaced by a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Lethbridge
"As a local resident, my view is that this plan must be rejected. Building on such a precious natural (scarce) environment, now designated SSSI is criminal. You cannot enhance a gold standard nature haven by tampering with it. Secondly, the road infrastructure just cannot take a further increase in traffic on the A2 and M25. This would add further pollution to an area already outside legal limits. The developers have considered other locations as part of their proposal. These should now be reconsidered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Runacres
"I have lived all my life in the South East of England , mainly Kent and the London Borough of Bromley and I have walked all over this area, as a hobby, and have many times walked over Swanscombe Marshes, from a Wildlife Area it is spectacular in a wilderness way although it looks unkempt it is teaming with all kind of Flora and Fauna and it should be kept as such, The UK has many Theme Parks and many on the Continent are within easy reach, we do not need or want any more."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Urwin
"I would like to register a strong objection to the application. The penisula is a beautiful place for humans, and an important place for wildlife. It's an SSSI, home to a wide range of endangered species, which should surely afford it some protection. Do we really need to build a theme park here - aren't there better places to build one? People need a connection with nature, they need green space - the pandemic has shown us this more than ever. Wildlife needs special habitats like this - at a time when the natural world is under such terrible pressure, we must try to keep as much as possible. Please don't let this important place be destroyed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Angus
"Over 50 years, I have seen our natural habitats being destroyed through ill-conceived developments and a total disregard to the richness and variety of animal and plant life which Great Britain supports. Examples have included the grubbing-up of hedgerows in the interests of wholesale farming, loss of scrub and wetlands for nefarious reasons, and ghastly coastal strip developments. The loss of Swanscombe Marshes would be a crippling blow to our inventory of wildlife havens. There is no justifiable reason to destroy this unique habitat. A resort theme park can easily be relocated to a brownfield site. However, once lost, these marshes will be gone for ever. The main intent of a theme park, as with all others built in the past, is to derive income from amusement. There are no educational benefits. Natural habitats not only preserve our valued species but also enable youngsters to be educated on the need to look after these habitats and the myriad of organisms they shelter. This planned development needs to be quashed. Let the developers look elsewhere!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Van-Gucci
"The Swanscombe Peninsula has been recognized as an outstanding wildlife habitat worthy of S.S.S.I. status. (Natural England). Wildlife habitats and species are being lost or damaged at an alarming rate in the UK. Swanscombe has evolved its unique diverse habitats and species over a very long period of time. Theme Parks come and go, but Swanscombe's unique wildlife and habitats would be lost for ever if the proposed development takes place. Swanscombe should not be damaged; it is part of our heritage. Philip Van-Gucci (Ecologist retired)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Prof Michael Crawley FRS
"We really must begin to take SSSI status seriously. The biodiversity crisis is real and it is happening now. The national biodiversity interest must come before the profits of property developers, no matter how influential they make their lobbying. Your response to this application is an acid test of your sincerity in relation to conservation objectives. I urge you to protect this newest of our precious SSSIs."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Prof Phillip Evans
"I support the Swanscombe Marsh Action Plan, as it is a place of outstanding ecological merit. I have no vested interest other than a wish to see this preserved for the benefit of future nature lovers."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Barford
"I have heard that, since I was a teenager 40 years ago, British wildlife has declined by 60%. This really shocks me to the core, that this has happened in my (relatively) short lifetime. Habitats such as Swanscombe Marshes are absolutely vital in supporting what wildlife we have left. The uniqueness of this new SSSI, having a range of habitats such as coastal environments, grasslands, scrub and wetlands mean that a huge diversity of wildlife can be supported here in a way that they can’t in other locations. The proposal may mean the developers offering to move the wildlife to other locations, but in practice this is rarely successful, certainly in this case, as nowhere else could offer the same diversity of habitats. Wildlife is so much under threat, and this environment is so unique, that it is devastating that anyone could propose to destroy it. Surely this infrastructure project could be built elsewhere, if it needs to be built at all?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Williams
"I am writing to register my dismay that this area of beauty, that is home to rare species and wildlife, is being considered as an area that development takes place. My main objection is the destruction of nature and the loss of habitat to so much wildlife. Development of an area, for whatever reason, is not how we, as humans, should be allowing. We can't replace wildlife once it's gone. It takes one act of destruction to wipe away years of natural beauty. Please reconsider allowing this application to go ahead. It's not in our interests to do this. It's in our interests to preserve wildlife and marshland. Thankyou"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ray Morris
"The increasingly catastrophic loss of biodiversity taking place, particularly in the UK, is sufficient in itself to retain the Swanscombe peninsula as a site for wild plants and animals. Further reasons, if they are needed, are related to education and health. As a headteacher in the nearby Medway Towns I know from experience the importance of having wildlife areas close by to educate and enrich the lives of young people growing up in the increasingly crowded and nature-deprived environs of London and north Kent. As the surrounding natural areas have been steadily eroded and industrialised, the difficulties of providing first hand experience of the natural world as part of young peoples’ education have increased, along with the urgent need to provide this if they are to be provided with the knowledge to conserve what biodiversity and natural resources still remain. Destroying the wildlife of Swanscombe will contribute to future destruction of biodiversity elsewhere. The rise in adolescent mental ill-health has been commensurate with the reduction of wild areas. Evidence of the benefits of access to nature for mental health is compelling. An afternoon in a Disney theme park (for those with the money to pay for it) cannot be compared with permanent free access to a natural place. To destroy Swanscombe for commercial profit will diminish the health, education and life chances of generations of young people to come."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Raymond Cordell
"I am concerned that the proposed development of a ‘ fun theme park’ should be allowed on a site of Special Scientific Interest. This site is crucial for so much wildlife including rare breeding birds. The development will also bring with it so much traffic and additional infrastructure which will devastate the surrounding area. Developments of this type should not be allowed in open country. There are so many brownfield sites which should be used. Once this wild area is gone it cannot be replaced. We should think long and hard about the damage we do to nature as this will eventually be to our detriment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rhona Haddon
"Please don't build on this site it is so valuable to so much wildlife. We need nature not leisure resorts! Without our green spaces nature can't thrive and continue to provide benefits to the environment and mental health. There are insects which will be threatened which are essential for life on earth. Please reconsider."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Birch
"If the list of important habitats and species on Swanscombe Marshes is insufficient to halt its destruction in order to build a paltry self-aggrandising THEME PARK, then frankly trying to protect anything is a total waste of time. If this Government has any understanding of the dire situation facing us all, and is serious about doing anything about it, then a theme park cannot possible override the importance of Distinguished jumping spider, Bearded tit or Man orchid."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Montagu
"I ask that this application is denied. You must be aware of the rapid decrease in wildlife in the UK and to allow the development of this site, in the way proposed, would be a disgrace. It is home to many red-listed species and some that occur in only a few places in the UK. The development would wipe out a swathe of our biodiversity. The fact that a number of reputable organisations are also calling for the application to be thrown out, should speak for itself. I hope you will be able to meet their and my request."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Insall
"Dear Planning Inspectorate, I write in regard to a proposal to create a theme park on Swanscombe peninsula. I am really hoping that it will not take you long to come to the correct, negative decision as it is such an obvious one. Who wants to set a precedent to trash a unique SSSI by allowing this proposal? It is indisputably in the wrong place. Given the public benefits of wildlife and wild spaces so dramatically confirmed over the past year, the value of this location must be preserved, not destroyed. Given that wildlife is in crisis here and elsewhere, it would seem criminal to allow this. I trust that you will make the right choice. Yours most sincerely, Dr R Insall MD, FRCS, PhD."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Ogier
"Why have Natural England declaring that it should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), confirming it as one of our country’s best wildlife sites, and then turn it into a theme park?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Wiggins
"I have read with great frustration how area of such huge significance for many rare and significant insects, birds, plants and mammals is under threat from a development. The need we have in the UK and indeed worldwide is to consider the threat to the natural world as the overriding consideration in such applications. The damage and loss of habitat and the associated plants, insects, birds and mammals will not be displaced they will be lost forever. Our responsibility is in all cases to preserve this for future generations they will not forgive us for losing their inheritance of the natural world. If such a development is needed then there must be more suitable sites that may be less economically attractive but that must not be the driver in these decisions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ross Elliott
"Hello I often walk around around Swanscombe Marshes and Botany Marshes on the Thames Estuary. This area is already heavily developed and congested with traffic and pollution, over-developed with the Dartford Crossing, M25, A2, Lower Thames Crossing to be built, Bluewater shopping centre and thousands of new homes being built around Ebbsfleet. The train line for Swanscombe is terrible and the last thing the area and environment needs is this theme park which will be more environmental destruction of the natural world. The Swanscombe Peninsula is home to a remarkable mix of habitats of high value to wildlife and plants. Rare and under threat animals and species call it home, including the critically endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus). Swanscombe Marshes is not just important for wildlife. The site has been enjoyed by local people for years for walking, bird watching, angling and escaping the hustle and bustle of North Kent. This 'London' Resort theme park in North Kent is a white elephant. Established theme parks around the UK are on their knees with COVID19. People will go to Disneyland in Florida or Paris, not Swanscombe. Bluewater cinema already provides a good cinema experience. Established businesses are already in place. It is the wrong development, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I strongly object to the application, it will be more destruction of the natural world, loss of biodiversity with unnecessary development and concrete. Regards Ross Elliott"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Bradshaw
"I wish to object to Planning Consent being given to the building of the London Resort Theme Park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. Natural England has declared that the Swanscombe Peninsula should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), confirming it as one of our country's best wildlife sites. The Swanscombe Peninsula supports more than 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider (atticus distinguendas) which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is also home to nationally endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and many other invertebrates, which make the site of national importance. Swanscombe's rich assemblage of breeding birds includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance - including Marsh Harrier, Bearded Tit, Nightingale, and Black Redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man Orchid. Swanscombe also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, water voles and otters. A document - rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula - was presented to Natural England in February. The London Resort Theme Park should not be built on the Swanscombe Peninsula. It should be built somewhere which is far away from Swanscombe, not near any SSSI."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Evans
"About a year ago, I looked on the Buglife map, and discovered that my village had a buglife area near it. I then discovered the Woodland Trust had planted a wood about half a mile from my house, and there were long eared owls, kestrels and sparrowhawks living near me. I am 68, and was truly excited. I hope you will allow people near Swanscombe to have the same pleasure as me. Natural England has recommended Swanscombe to be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It has rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps, Marsh harriers, bearded tits and nightingales. Bats, water voles and otters. Please allow wildlife to stay, and get developers to use brownfield sites."
Members of the Public/Businesses
S Gray
"The proposed London Resort is going to be on land that is full of nature and people enjoy walking there. It is also going to be near blue water and the dartford tunnel, when there is a tunnel closed with an accident or the bridge is closed to high winds surrounding roads are a nightmare and when it’s a busy time of year for shopping or school holidays, blue water is busy. All surrounding roads suffer. It is not good for the locals or the local wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Johns Green
"I am deeply concerned by the proposal to develop a theme park on the bio diverse Swanscombe Marshes. I believe that we must begin to prioritise our natural world over commercial development. The enjoyment of nature is essential to our sound mental health: particularly vital following the increase in mental health issues over the past year."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Barratt
"The Swanscombe peninsula has been designed as a Site of Special Scientific Interest by Natural England, due to its unique formation comprising coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. I am very concerned that wildlife in the UK is in decline and we need to preserve such habitats as Swanscombe which contain many rare and endangered species of birds and invertebrates. Swanscombe provides a habitat for the Distinguished jumping spider, Attulus Distinguendus, which is found on only one other site in the UK. This is an example of why this is a nationally important site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shirley Swan
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is absolutely the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. Swanscombe Peninsula is very important and a very large unique range of wildlife depends on it. It is a beautiful habitat for precious wildlife and environment. Please please do not destroy it with a theme park. Once destroyed it can never be restored and all the wildlife lives will be destroyed too. Please help to save their lives and keep this wonderful peninsula as it is by stopping the atrocity of building a theme park there."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Jennings
"1. I am concerned that regard to "Buglife and English Nature’s ‘Planning for invertebrate biodiversity’30, which provides specific guidance on the conservation of invertebrates and invertebrate assemblages as an integral component of planned development. ? Buglife’s good practice planning guidance31 and Brownfield Hub guidance32 ; and ? Colin Plant Associates (UK) guidance on ecological assessment and invertebrates33, including criteria for defining the significance of invertebrate habitats" may not be duly diligent. 2. If this goes ahead some serious biodiversity offsetting must be included and the developers must be made to provide assurance on the decommissioning and site restoration - bonds etc. 3. I am concerned that in a time during which the societal benefits of natural capital, restoring natural systems, etc., are being increasingly recongised, instead of making a London/Thames Nature Reserve we are contemplating a disneyland of gravesend on this site, which has ecological value, in the process extinguishing the distinguished umping spider. Why not build it on the poisoned and remediated land of the Greenwich Peninsula? At least the London Resort could then claim to be in London."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sophie Marple
"We are currently in a mass extinction and insects are at the forefront of this event. It is well publicised - and I'm sure the planners and those who seek to build on this site that warrants SSSI status know that. And if they don't, they should. Once this areas is bulldozed, it's gone forever. All the biodiversity, destroyed. And for what? More development. The science is clear - we have to leave space for nature - so siting a proposed development such as this one on a piece of land so rich in biodiversity beggars belief. Just in case I have not been clear, please do not pass this planning application. This is a site that needs to be preserved as a wild life sanctuary, as a place of special scientific interest. Develop your high octane entertainment on one of the countless sites across the country that are desperate for infill development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
St. Barnabas Cluster Global Healing Group
"Swanscombe Peninsula should receive SSSI status according to Natural England, so how come you are even considering destroying it for a theme park? You have a responsibility to protect our precious habitats. Please don't betray that trust."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stanley J Crees
"There is no doubt in my mind that this site must be preserved for nature - insects, birds, plant life and much more. So much of our landscape is being subsumed for purposes other than nature and the natural environment. Please ensure that this valuable corner of natural England remains for the benefit of wildlife and all that could flourish in this important location."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephanie Carn
"I very much object to the possible use of Swanscombe Marshes for an entertainment facility. It has just been recommended to be an SSSI, showing the value of the unique range of habitats. Sites like this which support a large number of scarce species in birds, invertebrates, and plants are being lost all the time. A theme park should not be built on a site which has such a lot of biodiversity. Such places need protection as they cannot just be created anywhere, but are built up over time, unlike a theme park, which could be built on one of the shopping centres which are rapidly becoming redundant. Everyone needs wild places for recreation , places where they can get in touch with nature. At a time when we need to cut our carbon emissions, we do not need a venue which will attract many car borne visitors. We need to protect quiet places."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Brereton
"The area around Swanscombe has seen a huge disappearance of natural habitats in the last 30 years. Eurostar, the huge ebbsfleet housing development, the growth of traffic on the expanded A2 (which has had to be moved because acceptable air pollution levels were exceeded) and the new river crossing at Chalk as an adjunct to the Dartford crossing (which has itself grown from one 2-lane tunnel to two 2 lane tunnels and a four lane bridge) have all resulted in increased urbanisation and a loss of opportunities to explore nature locally. For example one used to be able to see hawfinches in cobham woods, but not any more. The lockdowns of 2020 have underlined how important experience of nature is to mental health. So I urge you to give priority to natural resources in this overheated neighbourhood which does not need the jobs but does need the green spaces"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Paynter
"Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Smith
"I wish to protect at the proposed destruction of a SSSI site at Swanscombe. To get SSSI status there are noteworthy and nationally important species which occur at the site and habitats which are important. There are a good selection of breeding birdslike Nighingales which have declined over recent decades in the UK. There is also a nice selection of Orchids present. Orchids are great indicator species as their presence indicates the land hasnt been disturbed for many years. But these obvious species are good indicators that there are likely to be other important & scarce invertebrate which will be less obvious to the casual observer. This includes a critically endangered Spider with this being one of only two locations that it is known from. It takes a lot of evidence & study to gain a SSSI status & it should be illegal to willfully destroy these sites. Areas of wilderness are important and should not be destroyed just because a builder wants to build something. Please reject these plans & also make it clear that they are rejected for good so the developer cannot tweak something & restart this whole disruptive process all over again"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Clarke
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost, now more than ever with the dramatic decline in recent decades of many wildlife species. The effect of further loss will have long lasting damaging effects on the biodiversity of the earth as a whole as well as the local ecosystem. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart.13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I therefore implore you to reject the planning permission to build on this sacred site. It is a moral obligation for you to protect the life that depends on it. We as a species have already encroached way too much on the habitat of other species and must work together to rectify the damage and loss we have irresponsibly caused to the natural world and its wildlife. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Hunt
"We cannot afford to lose any more wildlife areas in this country and for it to become a "Resort" is unthinkable. Please do not allow this area to be lost forever. It is nationally important, as are all green spaces, for our future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Maxwell
"I object to any planning application on this land which does not concur with the wishes of Natural England to conserve it as a site of Special Scientific Interest for future generations. If our great grandchildren are unable to enjoy the biodiversity of this land, as we have been able to, it will be you, the planning authority which failed to save it, who will be held responsible. Is that the legacy you want to leave?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Sullivan
"I object to the development proposed for Swanscombe Marshes by London Resort Compnay Holdings, as any site that would qualify as a SSSI should be protected as part of our natural heritage and not be built on. This is a site of outstanding value for wildlife and at this time of ecolgical crisis and unprecedented declines in habitats and species, it should be protected from development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susie Sell
"Hello. I am writing to ask for this lunacy of building on sites if nature and wildlife to stop. We need and future generations of humans need nature and its inhabitants. The destruction of this area and all the pollution it will generate is a crime against humanity and future generations. Have you not learned anything from thie past year? We have to care for our natural diversity and wetlands and marshes. If not we are destroying that balance that will keep us and human kind healthy and alive on a planet that will sustain us if we learn how to stop polluting and killing any and all green enviromental pockets that are left. Sheer lunancy to continue with this project after the year we have had and its consequences on our health. We don't need another parking lot or amusement park. Thank you"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Swanscombe & Grenhithe Local History Group
"Swanscombe or Broadness peninsula is landscape of international historical importance. The inventions and developments of cement and paper on this piece of ground are of everyday importance even in the modern world. The whole area is a flood plane and is the last open space in this area of NW Kent. The proposals are to build the "London" resort are completely out of keeping with the landscape and will use up yet another flood plane. We are against the whole proposal in its entirety. We object to he destruction of open landscape. We oppose all the transport infrastructure that would be needed to make this idea work. We are delighted that he area has just been designated an SSI We wish for the area to be left undeveloped with improvements to rights of way for the public. We would want to see extensive archaeology surveys undertaken here."
Members of the Public/Businesses
T Anderson
"I believe the Swanscombe Peninsula should be saved from development and protected as it supports an outstanding range of wildlife. Once destroyed the habitat and species are irreplaceable. Swanscombe has a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that should be retained. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Please do not allow this wonderful unique habitat to be destroyed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tina Jeffery Heath
"As a nation, we must lead the way and show the world that we can stop species decline and still celebrate our lives as human beings. Kent is losing much of it's high quality farmland to housing already, and valued wetlands such as Swanscombe Marshes should not be lost to a project that has only entertainment as it's primary function. I'm not objecting because I want to deny people the chance to have a fun day out, but because this area is too precious as it is to justify destruction unless there is a dire need to do so. Theme Parks within easy reach of London already exist and there is already an abandoned one ripe for redevelopment in the existing resort of Margate, a town which would more than welcome the amount of money that backers of The London Resort are prepared to spend. We are a small country with little free space, and need to husband what we have left."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vanessa Clarke
"The site chosen is unsuitable for a theme park as it is one of the few remaining areas with a rich variety of wildlife, including birds, mammals and insects and flowers and grasses, many of them already endangered. There is enough developed or derelict land available closer to the likely clientele for somewhere suitable to be purchased. Endless lip service is paid in environmental policies to the fact that far too much destruction of the few remaining wild areas because it is cheaper than clearing and decontaminating land already wrecked by human "development". Such a change of site would be in line with national policy. This site meets all the criteria for a Site of Special Scientific Interest and should be preserved, primarily for the non-human inhabitants but also for those members of the human species capable of peaceful enjoyment of nature without causing disturbance or damage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alf Carrington 1
"Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and that it is more important than ever to spare our national treasure. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda Harris
"I am extremely concerned about the possible project on Swanscombe Marshes. Our wildlife is in serious decline and Swanscombe is recognised as a nationally important haven for that wildlife; sufficiently important to be recommended by Natural England as an SSSI. Losing such an important site and the resultant impact on rare and fragile populations of plants insects and animals, to an unnecessary infrastructure project is unthinkable. The pandemic has only served to highlight the social importance of our natural environment, let alone its contribution to protecting diversity, reversing global warming and protecting our pollinators. We should not even be considering this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bugden
"I do not believe that this site is an appropriate area for development. As a Kent resident I believe that this area should be protected for future generations. The site has become an important area for wildlife, in an area of coast that is already heavily developed and industrialised. The coast, in particular coastal marsh, is a very important and threatened habitat for nature. The council could use the extensive brownfield land at the old cement works adjacent to Blue Water as an alternative site of development. Theme parks only likely to provide seasonal employment, and very soon become an outdated and low value source of entertainment. An alternative use such as a nature park with high end glamping facilities would be more sustainable and attract more affluent customers. This area of Kent has a very poor image, high crime rate and social deprivation. The Blue Water shopping centre development has done little to improve this. Further commercialisation of the area will only drive out more affluent potential owner occupiers, drive down house prices and contribute to its post war decline. What it needs is high value projects which will improve the area's image - eg. the Turner Centre has done more for improving Margate's brand and profile than Dreamland ever has."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Jackson
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of the London Resort Theme Park on Swanscombe Marshes. This is an area of extreme importance to wildlife and has been recently designated by Natural England as a proposed SSSI. There are many species here that are nationally rare and endangered. Biodiversity is in crisis. This scheme if it goes head would have a disastrous impact on the Country's wildlife. I expect government and ultimately the Secretary of State to recognise the significance of this area to wildlife and to ensure that the application to develop the area is refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne-Marie Hewitt
"I object to this application. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. We must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. It is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance, including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Furthermore, wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, so it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park. We must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony John Paul Paterson
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife - it is vital for the wildlife that depends on it. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest - we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Please reject these proposals and protect this vitally important wild space."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Robbins
"We live locally and we utterly object to this project of yours! Nobody needs another theme park! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. Money and greed shouldn't go above everything else! Our dwindling wildlife is much much more important!! Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Regards, Anthony Robbins"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Asia Kane
"I believe that the Swanscombe Peninsula should not be built on due to the site's value to wildlife. It is an important green space for the local residents and I appreciate its beauty and the bird life found there. To me, this is far more important than a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Webb
"Sir, I am registering my disgust at this project, which is a further nail in the coffin of the complete lack of protection of the wildlife of this country and the world. From lowly Parish councils to the hallowed halls of National Government all that is paid to the environmental issues of the day is lip service, after that brief exercise in political chicanery and deception the destruction of nature carries on as before. Please stop this disastrous project immediately. Thank you Bernard Webb"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bethany Burrage
"Dear reader, I am making this submission to register as an interested party in this development and to express my opposition to what will be an ultimately disastrous project for the wildlife of Swanscombe Marshes. I am opposed to this development because of a number of aspects. The nature reserve is home to a wide diversity of wildlife and habitats, it supports over 250 invertebrate species, including the critical endangered distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which can only be found in one other site in the UK. It is also home to 15 species of red-listed birds of conservation concern. The wildlife across the UK and across the world is already in drastic decline and us as humans have been a huge driver in the decline, which is why myself and many people find it unbelievable that a theme park of all things has been proposed to be built on a site of special scientific interest. In addition, nature reserves have been proven to be a vital way for humans to interact with nature and as an important way for people to improve their mental well being. I would like to understand why anyone thinks this is a good idea. Why do we need a new theme park? and why does this need to be built upon a nature reserve? I think this appears to bottle down to the fact that the government's priority is and has always been economic growth above the environment. With the pandemic, it is understandable that restarting the economy is important, but this should not be at the expense of the environment. Regards, Bethany"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Webster
"I know this site and have long recognised its value for our nation's dwindling stock of wildlife. It holds a much larger complement of species that are already rare nationally and in some cases internationally. What needs to be more widely recognised is the fact that we ourselves ultimately depend for our survival on such communities continuing to thrive intact and free from any kind of development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Brockhurst
"I am so concerned to hear that Swanscombe Peninsula has been confirmed as a suitable site for a new theme park in London. The Peninsula supports an amazing range of wildlife as it contains a range of habitats that have developed over a long time: coastal, grasslands, wetlands and scrub. I know that Natural England have recommended that the Peninsula is declared as a Site of Scientific Interest, so I do not understand why permission to destroy the site and its wildlife would be given the go ahead. There is a high number, over 250, species on the Peninsula that are flagged for conservational concern and so of national importance. These include: - invertebrates such as the Distingushed jumper spider (Attulus distinguendus) which is only found in one other location in the UK, and is marked as endangered or vulnerable in other parts of the world; - a wide range of birds such as the Bearded tit and Nightingale; - well-known and loved mammals such as the water vole and otter; - plant species that are rare and scarce including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. Wildlife and the variety of species in the UK have been so much more appreciated since the start of the Coronavirus pandemic, and many more of us understand the need to support and enhance the environment and its habitats to improve the chances of survival for all the species that live with us and support our place in the world. I cannot comprehend why at the stage of our understanding of our place in the world why steps would be taken to destroy or remove some of the precious remaining habitats and the species that rely on these that we have and love in the UK. Longer term, we will all benefit from the survival of Swanscombe Peninsula, whereas only a few will benefit from a theme park so I ask that the Peninsula is not destroyed for a short term commercial interest."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine West
"In the light of climate change we just cannot lose any more wildlife habitats. Please protect these wild areas and save their diverse ecology for future generations to enjoy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Gillespie
"It is increasingly accepted that this country is gradually losing many areas/sites of wildlife habitat. This is due to many factors - among which are the assumed need for increased movement of people/goods - resulting in an expansion of rail & road networks. However, it has to be recognised that we must maintain a balance between our emerging society & nature - it is essential that we maintain spaces which offer retreat and a habitat to nature. .The Swanscombe site has been identified as one of special scientific interest - why destroy that and replace it with a 'theme park'? It would be a poor investment as regards our future society."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Lawrence
"I think that building a theme park on Swanscombe marshes, on a site used to encourage and help Wildlife thrive is a terrible idea. Wildlife is struggling and needs help, to survive and building on it for our own selfish needs and greed is disgraceful. It should be kept for wildlife and for those who love nature and for everyone to enjoy. Not only will it destroy wildlife and their nesting sites, it will encourage more traffic and pollution along the A2 and create major traffic problems around the Dartford Bridge the dartford area. I would like you to think about halting the plans to destroy a Natural Beauty Site and area of Scientific Interest. Please stop before it is too late. Kind Regards. MR DARREN LAWRENCE"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Bagott
"Swanscombe is an area of mixed habitat including grasslands, marsh and rough ground that supports a range of wildlife from plants and insects to birds and mammals. Some of these are rare and many under threat such as man orchids, black redstart, water voles. This is a very special area and National England recommending it of SSI. Our country has lost so much of its special places and areas that are important for wildlife but they are also essential for our well being and an essential part of inheritance."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Choat
"I am horrified to learn that there is a proposal to place a horrific development on an SSSI at Swanscombe Marshes. One thing that this pandemic has taught us is that people desperately need open spaces and countryside to enjoy and help their mental health. Natural habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate and everything should be done to preserve and manage areas that remain especially those with such a rich and important diversity of flora and fauna. once these species have gone, they have gone they do not just move away. We must preserve these areas, it is unthinkable that Swanscombe Marshes should be destroyed especially for something which will be a detriment to the environment pumping out a lot of pollution of both chemicals and noise. There are plenty of old brownfield redundant industrial sites where this sort of theme park could be built."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David M Davison
"I object to the the subject planning application for the reasons detailed below. 1) Swanscombe Peninsula is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands which have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. As someone who lives on a peninsula, I appreciate the importance of the habitats Swanscombe Peninsula provides. 2) Swanscombe Peninsula has recently won SSSI designation and we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. The area supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern - including the critically endangered distinguished jumping spider, which is found on only one other site in the UK - and is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps (along with a host of other invertebrates which make the site of national importance). 3) The Peninsula is rich in breeding birds and they include 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance (including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart). 4) The area also contains locally important populations of reptiles, bats, water vole and otter. 5) There are also 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species which have been found at Swanscombe Peninsula and they include 5 red-listed species (e.g. the Man orchid). 6) The Swanscombe Peninsula in its current form is also important to people for mental and physical health reasons. As a keen walker, I had planned to visit the Peninsula but the pandemic hit; and, as a keen walker, I know the importance of such places - which are becoming fewer - for my mental and physical health. 7) We hear repeatedly that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and that it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures such as the Swanscombe Peninsula. We MUST value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elle Arscott
"I would like to register my disapproval for the proposed Swanscombe Marshes development. I grew up in the area and know the marshes well. They may look ugly to outsiders but they are just as worthy of protection as mountain ranges or tropical islands. Just because something is not stunningly beautiful, does not mean it is not worth of protection. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. It is rich in flora and fauna, including several rare and protected species. The area of the Thames estuary is already massively over-developed, with little regard for the local residents. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park - we do not want it. There are plenty of brownfield sites around the country that could host a new development, without needing to destroy what is left of nature. Please just listen!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Tilbury
"I believe this planning application should be Rejected on the reason being, the Natural England has declaring that it should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), confirming it as one of our country’s best wildlife sites. Too many Widlife areas have been destroyed. Please really consider the environmental damage before you make a decision on allowing this site to be turned into a theme park. Thank you for reading this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ernie Scales
"Whilst I can see why there might be a reason to have holidays in the UK rather than visit Disney parks inAmerica or Europe consideration must always include location. Just because somewhere looks remote and barren from a human perspective doesn’t make it so for the other inhabitants of this planet who have an equal right to exist. That is particularly relevant where an area is deemed to have or be suitable for protected status. Humans may be the dominant species but only because of our inventiveness to produce the means to control other species. Any large-ish carnivore or protective herbivore would soon sort out an unarmed human as attacks by cows prove so why do we continue to assume that ‘lesser’ species do not deserve to have their habitats protected? This area is rich in all manner of species and genera, some rare locally and nationally and must not be sacrificed for the entertainment of the dominant species. As the dominant species we have the means and necessity to care for and protect those we have control over. That control should include a recognition of their rights to exist alongside the dominant species without being subject to the whims and pecuniary desires of the latter. The government has committed to a 30% allocation to nature; as such, nature should be given equal rights to exist and this application should be refused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
G R Parkhouse
"Over 50 years we have visited this area of Cornwall and cannot believe that anyone would want to build and impact the wet-land marshes and wildlife of Swanscombe Marshes in a very devastating manner. This an AONB and of Scientific importance. My family are from Hayle Cornwall and we have always enjoyed the RSPB wet-land bird reserve and often go onto visit Swanscombe Marshes. This application is a case of GREED NOT NEED please refuse this application and support the environmenmt and combat Global Warming as preached by the Polititicians."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gary White
"Swanscombe is home to a huge variety of invertebrates and birds. It is now an SSSI. It is a unique patchwork of habitats which supports 250 invertebrate species of concern and the critically endangered jumping spider the distinguished jumping spider.it also supports 15 species of bird on the red list (most concern). It also has important populations of voles bats and rare plants. This is also an important green space for local people to connect with nature and to exercise. Wildlife across the country is in decline. The government has said that they want to leave the state of nature better than when they inherited it. This objective is not compatible with allowing a huge development on the peninsula. London does not need this ‘resort’. It will destroy this valuable green space. If we are to have a truly green recovery we have to make decisions which put money second to environmental concerns. And so-called mitigation measures don’t work."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Shaw
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife. It is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird community includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Greer Hart
"I object to the proposed theme park to built on Swanscombe Marshes, which is recognised as a Site of Scientific Interest. It is now recognised that every country on Earth has to protect its biodiversity through protecting forests, wetlands/marshes, coastal and marine areas etc. Swanscombe falls into this category. Though a Scotsman, I am a member of CPRE and other conservation groups defending English, Welsh and Irish threatened habitats for plants and animals. Simply put, too many "developments" have gone through just to justify some political point that it they will create jobs, and ignore the precious life forms lost forever, when they could have been built elsewhere. We have seen such philistine actions in Scotland with Trump-like golf courses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heike Robbins
"Nobody needs another theme park! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. Money and greed shouldn't go above everything else! Our dwindling wildlife is much much more important!! Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Regards, Heike Robbins"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Bullock
"I am a biologist who lives in a National Park already compromised by recreational developments. Why is it that developers think that our last, beleaguered wild places are fair game for making money? During the Covid lockdowns, we have all learnt the precious, recuperative potential of green, natural, accessible areas. More important is the government's boldly stated commitments a) to Climate Change policy and b) Biodiversity. Recent data shows the 60-70% decline in British Wildlife in the last 30 years. The Swanscombe headland is not just a piece of waste land. It is a key set of habitats for wildlife, already noted as potential SSSI status and thus a crucial carbon sink in the fight to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. Buildings, traffic and infrastructure will destroy a biodiversity asset and instead add to our damaging GHG emissions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline Brett
"This is a vital wildlife haven, which is unique - a home to many wildlife species which will probably become extinct if human developments such as this are allowed. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter.13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. How anyone can contemplate building on such an important site for wildlife is beyond comprehension. Please please reject the planning permission for this monstrous proposition. Jacqueline Brett"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Mayes
"In these harsh times when we are more than aware that our wildlife everywhere is struggling, this proposal in unacceptable. This site is of significant importance for wildlife and as a suggested SSSI area, can hardly then be considered in a totally OPPOSITE LIGHT as the place to be destroyed for a resort. How can that possibly be correct....!!!...."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John P Booth
"In the UN Decade on Ecosystem restoration it seems inconcievable that such an important wildlife site should be destroyed to make way for a theme park. With such varied habitat and nationally important species it would be criminal to destroy this site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Wallace
"I am deeply concerned by the proposal to build a theme park on Swanscombe Marshes. My objection is based upon the fact that the development could destroy precious habitat that supports an abundance of rare and threatened wildlife. It is easy to characterise the land at Swanscombe Marshes as ‘wasteland’ or other negatively charged terms but to do so is misleading and ill-informed. The site may be defined as ‘brownfield’, indicating it has a past history of industrial use but this very history, combined with the site’s location on the Thames estuary has led to the development of a wonderful array of wetland, grass and scrub habitats. The quality of the habitats present at Swanscombe is reflected by the recent designation of the site as a SSSI, based on its exceptional diversity of species and the rarity of many of these. Swanscombe is important for wildlife including birds, mammals and plants but is particularly important for invertebrates, with over 250 species of conservation concern. This includes the Distinguished Jumping Spider Attulus distinguendus, which is known to occur at just one other UK site. The destruction of these populations caused by developing over the site would be a devastating loss to biodiversity and utterly at odds with government promises to reverse the decline in wildlife that has been ongoing in this country for decades. The loss of habitat at Swanscombe Marshes would not be an isolated case on the Thames estuary. On both sides of the river there has been long term loss of grazing marshes and other important habitats to development and there are still threats facing remaining important sites. Collectively these developments represent a threat of ‘death by a thousand cuts’ to the remaining wildlife of the area. The developer talks about ‘net gain’ in terms of biodiversity but this is, at best, a risky bet. The existing biological characteristics of the site will be lost beneath a funfair and there is no guarantee that anything comparable can be created elsewhere. All too often, mitigation falls far short of what is promised but by then it is too late and irreparable losses have been suffered. If land is available to create a new habitat mosaic comparable in extent and richness to what is present at Swanscombe Marshes, then why is the development not simply built there if it must be built at all? I have grown up in a World that is much poorer in terms of wildlife abundance and richness than the World my parents and grandparents grew up in and I do not want my grandchildren to grow up in one that is poorer still. During my life I have seen familiar species become scarce and national biodiversity indicators show that this depressing trend is true across a wide range of taxa and different habitats. We cannot allow this to continue, and I implore you to recognise that Swanscombe Marshes is the wrong place for a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joshua Greatorex-Davies
"I strongly oppose the proposed development on Swanscombe Marshes due to the importance of the area for wildlife. This is a unique area comprised of multiple habitats and this makes the area so rich in wildlife. It is a stronghold for over 250 species of invertebrate that are of conservation concern as well as being important for a number of birds, plants, reptiles and mammals. It is well known that we are in the midst of a climate and ecological emergency and the UK is a large part of this too. Therefore, we cannot afford to have further losses in nature and important areas such as Swanscombe Marshes must be protected. It is also widely known that wildlife has many benefits for us such as for improving our mental health. This has been especially shown throughout the pandemic and must not be forgotten as we look to move on from the pandemic. Wildlife and nature must be placed at high importance so that future generations will have a healthy world to live in."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Josie Newman
"I'm concerned about the impact of this potential development on a sensitive wildlife site. The regional, national and international picture for wildlife populations is pretty bleak so this is a significant concern. There are a range of habitats and species supported by the site that are scarce or rare and Natural England have recommended that the site be designated a SSSI, so they too believe the site should be protected for future generations. The wildlife populations there are likely to have limited ability to move and adapt given the developed nature of the surrounding area. The inevitable loss of habitat to infrastructure and amenity spaces that cannot support the wildlife community seems too high a price to pay for the proposed development. This location is in striking distance of many varied recreational opportunities presently, so I would question whether it is needed in this area. The recent pandemic has also changed attitudes to potentially crowded spaces and use of public transport, potentially for good. This leads on to the broader concerns around the existing significant congestion on the roads which would only be made worse by a development here and effect this would have on air quality. I have lived in Kent since I was a child, but I am not local to the site so would not be directly effected by the development save for the loss of opportunity to visit an important wildlife site and the impact on us all for a further degradation of biodiversity in this region."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Smith
"I wish to register my dismay at the decision to consider building a theme park on Swanscombe Marshes . While I understand the need for development to generate income I feel very strongly that this is the wrong location for such a project . It is also in my view time to stop playing lip service to protecting the environment. If giving an area the status of Site of Special Scientific interest is of such little true value that it can be ignored and the area developed in such a damaging way it’s pointless to designate areas at all . It shows to me that it’s just a bureaucratic farce . A theme park can go anywhere The Marshes can not . Once they are destroyed they are lost to everyone for ever . Well managed wild areas can also bring in revenue from eco tourism if invested in and would be a much more sustainable and appropriate approach to this area benefiting not just the local population but also helping with flood mitigation and giving our precious wildlife a refuge from the constant onslaught on natural habitats . Swanscombe Marshes are not a piece of waste land waiting to be developed they are a national treasure that needs to be valued and protected for future generations ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathy Gilks
"Dear Sirs I would like to appeal to you to retain swanscombe marshes and to save this incredibly rich natural area for the benefit of the residents, the natural world and the future of our planet. Creating this variety of flora and fauna takes decades probably centuries- and decimating it will take weeks. I am no expert but I have a love of our British native wildlife and my considered opinion is that it would be such a devastating loss and one that we can’t allow. I live in hope that someone out there will listen Best regards Kathy Gilks"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Dancey
"This site is of national scientific importance for flora, avifauna, insecta and fauna. It must not be degraded during a time of unparalleled biodiversity and bioabundance crisis. There are few sites of national value for such a wide range of species, or that meet the SSSI criteria so clearly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Sorrell
"I am shocked that such an important ecological site is under threat. Natural England believe the site to be important enough to recommend it is given SSI status. What is more important to the health of the general public, nature or a money spinning, possibly short-lived capitalist venture? I would say nature every time. I do not understand why local and central government are not prepared to put more value on the natural world. How can we criticise other countries when we care so little for our own country. I feel despondent, angry and frustrated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda White
"This is a very unique piece of land, that has some very precious flora and fauna in it, on it and around it. It would be a so wrong to dig it up, flatten it off and all for an amusement park! Again and again areas like this are lost to development in this country. This area is too important to so many creatures to ever be allowed to happen. Please consider the animals and plants here and the diversity of this area. It is not a disused piece of land it is teeming with life that many are not willing to acknowledge their existence as it's inconvenient. The fact is there is so much diversity here you should not ignore it for even a minute. STOP THIS AMUSEMENT PARK GOING AHEAD NOW."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liz Carlton
"I object strongly to the idea that a theme park is going to be built on an area which should be designated an area of special scientific interest, as recommended by Natural England. The UK is in the midst of the biggest and most dangerous biodiversity loss in recent history. We can’t afford to be concreting over an area like this which is home to over 250 invertebrate species, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. It’s a breeding ground for red listed birds and home to reptiles, bats, water vole and otters. And red listed plants like the man orchid Please, please don’t do this. Not for any reason must this be done. Not for a theme park! Kids need to be in nature, it’s wonderful, it’s healthy and it’s educational. They just don’t need another theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Luke Klein
"This project should definitely not go ahead. It is a site of special scientific interest. It supports an inordinate amount of species. How is this development even being seriously considered? The amount of unused brownfield sites, there is more than enough room to accommodate countless infrastructure projects without inflicting further harm on the environment than we already have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lusie Ambler
"Please would you consider the proposal for a London Resort theme park at Swanscombe Peninsular in the light of its value to important wildlife. As I’m sure you are aware, numbers of invertebrates, vital to our own well being and so important in their role as pollinators of crops, have declined 30-60 percent over the last 40 years. The site supports nationally important numbers of these species (over 250) as well as being an important site for birds and rare vascular plants. As the largest remaining brownfield site on the Thames Estuary without planning permission for development, Swanscombe Peninsular offers a rare and valuable opportunity to maintain the site and sensitively use the area for schools visits and nature courses. Never has engagement with nature been so important as is now. English Nature has proposed the site to be designated a SSSI for good reason. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Moss
"The Global Ecological Crisis - the huge reductions in numbers of species, and increasing numbers of extinctions, has as many implications for human existence as the related issue of Climate Change. In many cases this crisis has been driven by massive infrustructure projects, both here and across the globe, whether in the shape of dams, huge housing projects, road building, transport projects and so forth. It is as completely non-sensical to build, of all things, a theme park on one of the last and largest untouched habitats in this part of the South East as it is to open new a coal mine in the Cumbria, and at the same time claim be be building back "Better" or "Greener". Jobs in a Theme Park in this location (including the structural engineering etc) are NOT Green Jobs, and cannot claim to make any contribution to a Green Economy. It will instead have a massive impact on the natural environment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Nelmes
"As a nature conservationist, working for several voluntary wildlife organisations, I OBJECT to this planning application to build the London Resort on the Swanscombe peninsula for the following reasons: The peninsula is a site of great importance to wildlife, due to its exceptional diversity of habitats and warm, dry micro-climate. Its habitats consist of chalk grassland, ditches, floodplain grazing marsh, deciduous woodland, wetland and saltmarsh. These habitats attract a great diversity of wildlife, which is why National England has recommended that this peninsula be designated a Site of Special Scientific Importance to nature (SSSI). This wildlife includes: * over 250 invertebrate species that are endangered or critically endangered in the UK, including species of bees, wasps, spiders and beetles. * Many species of breeding birds, 15 Red-listed and 12 of Principal Importance, including marsh harrier, bearded tit, nightingale and black redstart. * 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species, including 5 that are Red-listed. * locally important populations of reptiles, bats, watervoles and otters. Sites like this are becoming increasingly rare in the Thames Estuary, over half of them lost, damaged or under threat, due to development, since 2007. There is a unique opportunity here to designate the Swanscombe peninsula as an SSSI and turn it into a nature reserve, where children from nearby urban schools could come to learn about nature and conservation, and where people of all ages could come to unwind. The pandemic has demonstrated how important it is for people's mental health to be in nature, especially for those who live in urban and industrial areas. The people of North-east Kent are so fortunate to have such an extraordinarily rich diversity of wildlife on their doorstep. You can build a theme park anywhere, but you cannot recreate this unique collection of habitats with their amazing ecosystem anywhere else."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marion Andrew
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern and many important species of birds including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. A theme park is not appropriate for this site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marlies MacLean
"Mankind depends on healthy, rich biodiversity for our very existence - clean air, clean water, fresh food, physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. This has been proven fairly dramatically during recent years and particularly during the confinement caused by this covid 19 pandemic. The State of Nature reports made since 2013 by experts in all fields of knowledge of nature have been alarmed at the speed of the reduction in, and extinction, of much biodiversity since 1970, due to loss and fragmentation of habitat, expansion of manmade infrastructure, and climate change and other factors. It is well known that today's children, and often their parents, have lost touch with nature, as shown by the dictionary with the "lost words" of previously very common flowers etc. Schools, at least in Scotland, are beginning to have some outdoor education and it has been shown that this often helps with behaviour, attention in class, and general wellbeing. Swanscombe Marshes has a great deal of rich biodiversity, including some very rare, and decreasing flowers, eg the Man Orchid; insects, such as the delightfully named Distinguished Jumping Spider, of which only ONE has been found anywhere else in England; a good number of amphibians and other water creatures; and several uncommon or rare birds eg. the nightingale, the only night-singing bird which is being lost in other parts of southern England where it lives due to worsening habitat; Bearded tits which can be heard but can be challenging to see; Black Redstarts which are again almost only southern species; and Marsh Harriers, another uncommon and exciting bird of prey. If any one of these species becomes extinct, we do not yet have enough knowledge to know how it will affect the chain of life on which, as already said, we all depend. However, we are now beginning to realise how vitally important biodiversity is. We must increase it throughout the country, not destry it. it is good for everyone's well being to be out in it, discover its intricacy and be fascinated by our discoveries; and to become close to nature once again for the sake of our own health and happiness. I therefore am against the current plans for Swanscombe Marshes. ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Alison Lawrie
"I am very concerned to learn that this important area for wild life is being threatened by the proposed building of the London Resort Theme Park. As a member of the RSPB and the Kent Wildlife Trust, I know how important this peninsula is as a habitat for invertebrates, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider. Birds, bats and reptiles, as well as a large range of insects, need areas such as the Swanscombe Marshes for their survival. This pandemic has raised awareness of the importance of community spaces for recreation and the chance to walk whilst observing wildlife of all kinds, including bird-watching, make these areas even more highly valued. What a tragedy it would be, for the extinction of certain species to be risked for some cheap thrills on fairground rides, lasting only a few minutes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Carol Crane
"I need to speak out and fight for all the creatures,birds,mammals ect that live in these Marshes.I have visited them on several occasions.What a beautiful place.It lifted my heart,to see such a diverse area of habitat.I encourage wildlife to my garden and the joy I get from it.People need these spaces,not just for their wellbeing,but the UK is the most nature habitat depleted countries in Europe.What does that say about us as a Environmentaly supportive nation.It makes me angry and sad for children growing up not able to access nature and woodlands in the future.Once these areas are gone there's no going back.Areas of Marshes have evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years to how they now.We don't need another Theme Park.We need Nature,nature left alone thrives,humans thrive with nature."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Christine E Ridley
"I am very worried that an application to build on such an important site has been submitted. Surely with the latest news of vast numbers of creatures becoming extinct it is time to put nature first. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands which supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus) found on only one other site in the UK, and Natural England have recommended that it should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Swanscombe is also home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. It is absolutely disgraceful that losing this important site should even be contemplated. Humans enjoy and are part of the natural world, so clearly this site should be promoted as a nature reserve for everyone to enjoy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Fawcett
"Firstly, this is the first time that I have written such a representation. However, my feelings of economy first above all else is becoming so strong after I see all the ongoing environmental destruction that I felt obliged to express my opinion. All major political parties have declared a climate emergency. This year the UK and hosting the world climate change conference. If we are at all serious about climate change then we must lead the world in protecting what little remains in the UK. This site has been recommended as a SSSI, and therefore shows it is critical to local wildlife. Such sites must be protected so that our future generations can enjoy the same wildlife and green spaces that we are still privileged to continued destruction of our already rapidly declining wildlife and environment must stop before it us too late. Please consider and do the right thing. Kind regards Neil Fawcett"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paola Catapano
"we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost! Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife: Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub, and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England has recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps, and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales, and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole, and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Stanley Hobbs
"I am writing to object against the planned building of the London Resort theme park on Swanscombe Marshes. Swanscombe Marshes is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grassland, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site's complex human history. It is very important to have wetlands as they help offset flooding, which now happens more often. It also supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on ONLY ONE other site in the UK. Swanscombe is also home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of NATIONAL INTEREST. It has rich breeding birds including 15 RED LISTED Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 species of Principal Importance - including Bearded Tit, Nightingales and Black Redstart. 13 nationally rare vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 Red-Listed species such as the Man Orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water Vole and Otter. At these time of restricted movement for all it is also a haven for people to walk in and help with the mental health too. So many of this wildlife is in serious decline in the UK as well as the habitat. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park - we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. What damage would be done to build such a theme park and there would also be a higher risk of flooding due the lack of the marsh being a buffer. Yours faithfully Paul Hobbs"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Riley
"This site is of national importance for wildlife hence the Natural England proposal to declare it a SSSI. There are many good reasons for this including the over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern on the site, the 15 red-listed bird species and the 13 nationally rare vascular plants. The invertebrate species include bees, wasps, spiders, and beetles. This is no doubt at least in part due to the rare combination of habitats on the site which includes scrub, grassland, wetlands and coastal areas. The shocking decline in wildlife across the UK is now well-documented and is particularly evident in the south of the UK - applications of this nature illustrate one of the reasons why this is happening. Given the above I urge that this application be firmly rejected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Polly Meyrick
"Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Warner
"I am appalled that one of the few remaining UK wildlife rich pieces of land is at risk of being concreted over for human pleasure. Is there no legal protection when a place is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest? Does National Infrastructure Planning not see that as each area with diverse wildlife is destroyed, the whole of human existence is at threat? This is obviously a proposal that is made by, and being considered by, people who are incredibly short sighted and greedy for immediate wealth. Think of your descendants, please. They are the ones who will suffer from the disappearance of wild spaces."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ria Monckton
"The Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- so important that it is being designated as a site to be statutory protected as a SSSI. It is so important for the world life that it supports. This is because if the unique open mosaic of habitats, following human history across the site, allowing it to regenerate into a thriving habitat supporting over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK! Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Hence why Natiral England has confirmed that they recommend it be designated as a SSSI. The site has a rich breeding bird assemblage including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. It also supports 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. Not to mention it also contains protected expected such as locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. One of the greatest things to come out of the covid pandemic is showing how much we value our wild / open spaces for all to enjoy. People being able to access these spaces has MASSIVE health and well-being improvements. And it’s free- so supports those on low incomes and families to enjoy these spaces (which are few and far between and continuing to decline due to development). Connecting with nature and ‘forest/wild bathing’ reduces stress, mental health issues, increases fitness and connects us to the outside world like nothing else can- particularly a theme park. We need to protect these spaces for wildlife and for our own means. Once it’s gone it can never be replaced. The huge array of habitats and species that it supports could never be fully mitigated and it will be lost forever- and action that you will be responsible for. Please make the right decision for all of our futures, and rather than allow a non-essential development such as a theme park to be delivered, you protect this area from unnecessary development. Jobs can still be provided through the running of the site as a reserve. Please prove that we do in fact have value in our wildlife havens by rejecting this development. Thank you Ria Monckton"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Simpson
"Swanscombe Marshes is a site of exceptional quality in terms of biodiversity and ecological importance. The area supports no fewer than 49 IUCN Red List species, and comprises a rich assemblage of rare and complex habitats and ecosystems, including wetlands, grasslands and scrub. The combination of habitats found on this peninsula are far more valuable for wildlife, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, landscape and Amenity, than any of the individual elements considered alone. The designation of SSSI’s is designed to afford protection to sites of critical national importance. Now of all times, when we are beginning to understand the GLOBAL importance of protecting, and indeed extending, areas of,” Wild Land”, this designation should be taken seriously, and should render such areas inviolate and safe from damaging operations and developments."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Drinkwater
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- very important for the wildlife depends on it. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roland Cook
"Swanscombe marshes is a totally inappropriate place for the development. Gravesend to the east, Dartford to the west, Thames to the North and A2 to the south, the Bluewater shopping mall inside that area. The infrastructure cannot cope at the moment. This development will create traffic chaos. My daughter lives at Greenhithe and frequently cannot get home from work. She only works two miles from home at the Crossways site. Swanscombe marshes is a designated site of special scientific interest and is part of a corridor for nature. Rainham marshes just beyond the Dartford crossing, the RSPB reserves at Cliffe pools and High Halstow and continuing down the river to the Oar marshes and Sheppey. It is vital for wildlife that Swanscombe remains part of this wildlife corridor along the Thames. We are at a time in our history where bio diversity and climate change are at the forefront of our thinking. We must protect this site and look for an alternative brown field site (of which there are many) for this development. The only reason why the developers do not want to build on a brown field site is because it is much more expensive to do so. They would rather destroy the environment and save money than build on an existing brown field site that has already been developed which will cost them much more. Planting thousands of trees to compensate does not create a habitat. Habitats take hundreds of years to develop. Build this development on a brown field site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Aylward
"I wish to object to the application to build the London Resort theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. I am concerned that wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and that it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The importance of spending time in nature has been recognised during the pandemic. Although, hopefully, it will be possible to travel further afield over the coming months I cannot see us spending weekends in Suffolk and Norfolk as we did prior to the pandemic for some time. Therefore Swanscombe Marshes is possible to visit from London for a day trip. Its rich breeding bird population includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance - including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest which confirms it as one of our country’s best wildlife sites - we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. In addition to birds Swanscombe Marshes also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park - we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. Are the benefits still deliverable in a post-Covid world? The government’s Covid-19 recovery strategy states “The first consideration is the nation's health.” Retaining Swanscombe Marches will support this, how will development of the London Resort? Local businesses will take time to recover from the economic impacts of Covid-19 and its unlikely they will have recovered fully by the planned opening date for the London Resort. Are the economic benefits of the London Resort still what they were?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Hardy
"Hello I was resident in Kent during my schooldays and learned much about natural history during this time, but never had the good fortune to visit Swanscombe marshes. Neither, thank heaven, have I ever been to Disneyland... Please, this tiny island has quite enough contrived plastic playgrounds; but we can't manufacture a wildlife haven once it and its (in some cases unique) flora and fauna has been obliterated. A planet consisting only of plastic, money and human beings wouldn't survive very long. Please don't contemplate this move. Kind regards Sheila Hardy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Plant
"If future generations are to survive and thrive they will need a healthy environment, the more diverse nature the better the future environment. Swanscombe Peninsula being an open mosaic of coastal habitats supports a special biodiversity largely due to it's unique climate, more continental than the rest of the UK, special enough to prompt Natural England to recommend the site become a site of special scientific interest. Such sites are vital to protect important species and by extension future human generations. Of all the species found on the site more tan 250 invertebrate species alone are of conservation concern, one species in particular is critically endangered and only found at Swanscombe and one other site in the UK, Swanscombe is nationally important. The birds using the site include 15 red listed species, 12 of those species are of Principal Importance. There are also 13 nationally scarce vascular plants. The biodiversity of the site is very special and very important. It is pointless combatting climate change if we do not preserve biodiversity, without a rich biodiversity mankind cannot, will not survive. There are numerous theme parks around the UK already and competition for customers is fierce, with so many job losses as a result of the pandemic and the economic impact how many will have the spare cash to visit theme parks? Visiting natural spaces has been shown to have proven benefits for physical and mental health both from the visual stimulus of green spaces and the beneficial chemicals given off by nature. By contrast a theme park would be a very artificial environment with considerable traffic and associated pollution, also noise pollution and likely litter in the surrounding environment. Once developed the site will be gone forever and we will not be able to replicate it or indeed mitigate or compensate for it's loss elsewhere due to its unique climate and location. Developing the site may bring a short term economic gain, the loss of biodiversity and all of it's benefits now and in the long term would be a permanent loss and detrimental to every generation to come. Current younger generations are far more environmentally aware, indeed understandably very concerned for the future, the coming years are likely to see the next generations of young adults wanting to explore study and protect nature not visit theme parks. A theme park could be located almost anywhere, the unique nature of Swanscombe cannot go elsewhere, it survives or is lost forever. For the sake of our children, grandchildren and beyond, give them hope and a chance, put nature first and foremost. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Spencer
"Swanscombe comprises a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest; it supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance, including Marsh Harriers, Bearded Tit, Nightingales and Black Redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man Orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water Vole and Otter. We must properly protect our most important wildlife sites so that they are not lost. Many species are on the brink already and once gone, will be gone forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Ward
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is important for its precious wildlife and thus is the wrong place for a theme park - we must value wildlife more than any other use. Swanscombe Peninsula Natural England state that it should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Caroline Webb
"Having previously lived a large part of my life in Dartford with my husband, who was born in Sutton at Hone, I am already shocked at the overdevelopment in this previously rural area. I really must appeal to you to stop anymore overuse of any ‘wild’ areas that are left, particularly to create anything that interferes with all aspects of nature. To build another theme park on the wonderful site of Swanscombe Marshes would be a travesty. This place is about the only vestige of hope that our wildlife has now, in this part of Kent. Even in these unpredictable times of climate change and with all of our conservationists stressing how important wild places are, I am shocked that you can even be considering this totally unnecessary application. Too many rare and wonderful creatures use this space that, if nothing is done to help them, will soon be lost forever. STOP NOW PLEASE. Or be it in your own heads as the destroyers of our future!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Taylor
"Swanscombe Marshes provides vital habitat for so many species of mammals, insects and plants. Many of these are very rare and on the Red List or critically endangered species list. The marshes have been identified as an SSSI, a coastal mosaic comprising of grasslands, wetlands and scrub, it's hugely important for biodiversity and eco systems that are necessary for all of us to thrive. There are jumping spiders, this is one of two sites in England that have them, rare bees, wasps, otters, water voles, Nightingales, Marsh Harriers, to name a few. The marshes provide so much pleasure to not only local people but visitors, this pandemic has highlighted how we all need these places to promote physical and mental health and well being. The marshes allow people to escape the stress of life and how connecting with nature produces a multitude of health benefits In a time where we need to protect our fast declining wildlife, in a time where we know the importance and value of nature, surely we should be doing everything we can to save these marshes. I cannot see how a theme park is justified on such an environmentally valuable piece of land, a park that will increase pollution of every kind. I sincerely hope the value of this land for necessary wildlife, biodiversity and it's eco systems, and the welfare of local people and others, is hugely considered and common sense will prevail in not allowing an unnecessary theme park destroy it all."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Suzette MacDougall
"As a nature lover, I believe that the preservation of wildlife habitats is essential and should be prioritised. I am opposed to the proposed development of Swanscombe Marsh. The area has been recognised as a Site of Special Scientific Interest by Natural England. It is a valuable refuge for people as well as for wild life. We crush our wild creatures and cement over them at our peril. "What is man without beasts? If all the beasts were gone, man would die from a great loneliness of spirit. For whatever happens to the beasts soon happens to man. All things are connected" (Chief Seattle 1854)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Sykes
"At a time when nature is in crisis the UK provides an example of what happens when the land is over-exploited. We as a nation do not enjoy the large wide open spaces of many of our neighbours. We have the worst tree cover in Europe & while we deplore the destruction of habitats for wildlife in other countries, it appears that few qualms exist in relation to UK land, when it comes to a tiny number of people making a profit. It beggars belief that almost on the eve of COP26, there is a need to object to the building of yet another artificial theme park on what should be an SSSI. This development is proposed for a city that has more to do within its' boundaries than the rest of the UK put together. Everything possible should be done to protect, maintain & enhance the tiny fraction of the natural world still present within our shores. During my lifetime I have seen so much of the countryside go under concrete that, far from becoming complacent or accepting of this, I have become more concerned, especially given the fact that human greed-driven activity is killing the only planet we've got."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Phillips
"This site has been recognised as a SSSI. It supports a critically endangered spider, 15 red-listed bird species and 5 red-listed vascular plant species. In these times of climate and biodiversity crisis, I struggle to see why sites like this are even considered for development. It's debatable whether the country needs another theme park, but it certainly should not be constructed on the site so vital to the health of our natural world. This habitat cannot easily be re-created so once lost, it will be lost forever. I urge you to reject the planning application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Rees
"This site has just been declared an SSSI. It’s an important site for all manner of wildlife and plants, and no matter what mitigation is put in place, it cannot replace what will inevitably be destroyed. This is quite simply the wrong site for this proposed development. There is an increasing recognition that we need to look after our environment, to recognise the importance of nature and biodiversity. If this application was to succeed, it’s another nail in the coffin, another missed opportunity to protect, another decision to put profit before public good."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brigit Strawbridge
"Please, do not grant planning permission for this project. People do not 'need' another theme park, especially when its creation will cause yet more destruction of precious wildlife habitat that we can ill afford to lose. This area has become a haven for SO many insects and countless other species that cannot be relocated, as well as a breeding ground for 15 red-listed birds. It is more valuable as a refuge for wildlife than any theme park could ever be - and a place that Londoners could be proud to declare a 'left alone place' in a world that just keeps on taking. The wild animals and plants currently living at Swanscombe are so much more precious that a few fleeting hours of enjoyment humans might take home from some glizzy Theme Park. I do not believe there is a single child who, if they understood how many wild lives would to be lost to facilitate this theme park, would choose for it to be built. This is a chance to make a real difference by saying "No". We are already in the middle of a 6th mass extinction. Please, don't accelerate it by granting planning permission for this park. Thank you for reading my representation. Brigit Strawbridge Howard"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carole Coqueral
"I can't believe that the application to build the London Resort theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula has been accepted. Don't do this. As Natural England recommended in February Swanscombe should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It is totally the wrong place for a theme park. I'm not a local... so this isn't a 'Not in My Back Yard' reaction. Wildlife across our country is in decline, and wildlife sites like this should not just be spared, but treasured. There are over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern at Swanscombe (including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK; and who doesn't love the idea of a jumping spider! Just stop. Don't ruin Swanscombe forever."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ceri Blower
"I just do not understand how a SSSI can even be considered as a suitable site for a theme park. We have theme parks aplenty. Sadly, our invertebrates are in rapid decline. This site is precious; some things are more precious than making money for developers and businesses."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Burrell
"A unique British environment under threat, we cannot lose any more species habitat. A theme park is NOT part of a Green Recovery. Too many species will lose their homes and we can't afford this loss any more it's an environmental crime. Protection, NOT destruction. This is our future, please no more loss."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Cook
"If this application is successful, then an outstanding SSSI together with its remarkable and diverse range of wildlife will be all but wiped out. The theme park can be built elsewhere, but Swanscombe Marshes is irreplaceable. Although I have never visted this site, I spent many happy days playing in similar sites when I was a youngster. My interest in insects derives directly from my first hand experience. For todays youngsters, sites like this are all they have left, and there are precious few of them now. This development would be the death nell, not only for a hugely rich resorse of endangered species, but also for the faith that ordinary people have in a system that is all we have to rely upon to protect our flora and forna, our natural homeland."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Dewsbury
"I wish to register my objection to this site being considered for development. Sites with such a high level of biodiversity are now far too rare to be lost because they take many years to develop and cannot be recreated or compensated for. The idea that the biodiversity of Swanscombe can be improved seems to me ludicrous and disingenuous. It is the kind of place that I take my holidays in order to observe unusual wildlife. I don’t believe that a theme park is really an infrastructure project. This seems a designation made to circumvent wildlife protection laws."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Hawes
"The damage that this development would do to wildlife and the environment is catastrophic. The development is completely unnecessary, out of all proportion and will have cause irreversible damage. I object to it on the grounds of the environmental damage, the increased traffic and the additional carbon emissions it will cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dawn Johnston
"I wish to appose the development in the strongest possible terms transport infrastructure is already stretched and not able to manage with increased traffic Housing health infrastructure is not sufficient for proposed plan of significance the unique and treasured breeding ground this area has for animals insects plants. It is of note that some v rare specimens are only houses in this area Development of the project would eradicate these precious specimens for good Not the right area for such a development"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deeley Brewer
"Dear Sirs The area is sssi and protects much wild life including rare species that need the protection. It is so Very very important in the current climate to protect these areas not just for the wildlife that is so important but for our own welfare too.Surely this pandemic has taught us that.Kind regards Mrs Deeley Brewer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Adam Hudson
"I am writing to emplore you to reject the The London Resort project. It is well documented that the UK has decimanted its natural habitat and has suffered huge biodiversiaty loss, yet here we are facing yet another project that will destroy a key natural site. Surely it is telling that Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest? This decision isn't taken lightly, and is not just a trivial gesture. Surely we, and in this case you, owe it to future generations to protect and preserve such sites so they can enjoy them too? And this is before mentioning the creatures that call this place home. This includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black Redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. Surely these are reasons enough in themselves? Do you really want our children to live in a lifeless, concrete environment with almost no biodiversity? I am asking you to step up and be counted here, and not bow to the all too powerful, soulless commercial pressures. thank you Dr Adam Hudson"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Ken Neal
"I recognise that business and employment are important but in a time when so many local authorities have declared a climate emergency and more importantly a biodiversity emergency, it seems at odds with the current situation to grant planning permission to something as frivolous as a theme park. If the developer is determined to build their park, surely there are no shortage of former industrial sites that they can use?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Rob Thomas
"This SSSI site is one of the most important individual sites in the whole of the UK for biodiversity of insects and other invertebrates, as well as many species of birds and other wildlife. Building of a theme park on this pristine habitat would be an ecological disaster for which the local authority would be held accountable. I urge you to reconsider the proposed destruction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Robert Cassels
"This site is too valuable for nature to build anything on. The government for all its stated green intentions simply cannot keep approving schemes like this that destroy our precious wildlife and habitats. Every site lost to development is gone for ever, and depletes our diminishing natural resources, already one of the most impoverished - if not the most impoverished - in Europe. We cannot afford to lose this site for such a development, which does not in any way constitute nationally-important infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Whitford-Smith
"Please can you keep this area for wildlife and nature. It is so wrong to keep destroying and building, these areas need to be protected forever. Thank you very much for your time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gail Heyes
"Points 1 Disney Paris is 4800 acres which is 7.5 square miles, the S Peninsula is itself is only 2 square miles 2 Opening times, if you have 10,000 customers coming at the same time at 8 am you would have to run buses and trains every minute to get everybody in. When I started to work at Bluewater shopping centre 12 years ago , I know what this looks like.I sat in a traffic jam for half an hour to get home ( it’s only a mile away!) 3 Noise , I was born in a small seaside town with a tiny fairground, as soon as you get 3 miles away you can hear the noise, look at the theme park marketing photos, all those people and food and shops all outside , it will be like living next to Oxford street London before the pandemic. 4 If you are coming from Europe to the theme park you would rent a car. The theme park would be expensive at least £40 for the day , middle class , lots of disposable income ,that type of person wouldn’t use the bus, When I have been on holiday it is always car rental. 5 Paris Disney has miles of roads just for the customers , Swanscombe and Greenfield roads are already packed , also being next to ebb fleet garden city another 10 thousand houses to be built? 6 If you go to Alton Towers do you go out of the park into the towns? No to get value for money , you would stay there all day ,it’s the theme parks job to keep you there all day kids tired then to bed.If you went to Paris Disney would you go out of the park for lunch? No , all the surrounding businesses would suffer. 7 Retail Bluewater and Lakeside shopping centres jobs would all be lost due to the large amount of Retail in the Swanscombe theme park , before the pandemic I found out the numbers, 20 thousand jobs would go 8 High tide 3 times a year , you can search for a photo of a small playground near Ingress Park , visit me I will take there , the tide from the Thames rises 25 feet , nobody has addressed this 9 If the theme park plot of land was 5 times bigger and nothing 10 miles in each direction it would be fine , but this is not the case , I have lived in Ingress park since 2004 and started work at the Bluewater shopping centre since 2009. So I know everything about the area and it’s surroundings. I have heard this will be open all night 24 hours a day , to get back their money they have spent quickly . Would you live next door to this , it would be like living next door to a nightclub, people wandering around the area at midnight waiting for a bus or train or driving somewhere. Nobody has mentioned security or police presence, if they are expecting 50 thousand customers, working at Bluewater there is always that 1% who want to break in and damage the area, Bluewater has had its share of this , nothing mentioned. Nobody has mentioned litter , having seen myself what 9000 ( pandemic numbers , Bluewater usually lets in 27000) people leave behind at Bluewater, what a colossal mess , it’s bigger than a five bedroom house in size each DAY. What would 50 000 people’s litter look like , don’t forget staff numbers of approx 10 000 as well . Wembley stadium can do this , plenty of ways ,in plenty of roads but people are only there for three hours max. This has 500 words max but could do another 2000 words of other numbered points to say why this is the wrong plot of land for this theme park . Just go to Greenhithe church on London Road it can’t be widened ,on the church side of the road there is no pavement to walk!!! London Road is the only way to the theme park!!! Further up the London Road to Ingress Park and beyond, there are houses on each side and the road is too narrow 10 Please arrange a visit and will give you a tour of Ingress Park and the surrounding theme park area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Henrietta Simson
"I am writing to protest about the planning application for Swanscombe Marshes, as the idea to turn it into a theme park when it has been recommended as an SSSI by Natural England, seems to be, in my respectful opinion, incredibly rash at this time of species collapse and climate crisis. It is one of the most important ecological sites in the UK and supports a diverse range of species, from invertebrates, to birds and small mammals, many of which are critically endangered. The UK needs more than ever to protect its wild spaces, and a model example could be made of Swanscombe. A complex human history has created this richly diverse environment with its unique ecology, and it seems devastatingly short-sighted for the next stage of human involvement is to destroy it in order to make way for a theme park. I urge you to reject this application for the sake of all our futures."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacky Mattam
"The benefits accruing from the creation of a theme park are far less than those gained from leaving the area as it is. People's mental and physical health have been shown to thrive in 'nature spaces', and I believe that these benefits are in excess of those gained from using a theme park. Long term health of both people and planet must be taken into account in view of the dangers the planet faces ecologically."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jaine Tamplin
"There is no justification for turning Swanscombe into a theme park. There is nothing more important than the natural world, as the pandemic has shown us all too clearly and people need nature, not an artificially created playground. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jean Jarvis
"As a member Of Bug Life. A 'theme park' for London. How good for the Planet & Climate Change mitigation is that? London is an unnatural animal, a greedy, portly careless beast. For those who have their heads in touch with wildlife & Nature @ landscape scale, the ecology of Swanscombe Marshes is rare & vital. The invertebrates in this country are mostly in steep decline due to the 'Human Invasion' of their habitats. We rely on many to keep our soils in good heart, to pollinate our food & give many clean-up services. Without them we would struggle. The areas where Nature can retain rare & endangered species are more & more fragmented by our selfish, ignorant behaviour. To rubbish Swanscombe Marshes with this frippery is unsafe & ultimately insane."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Withers
"Swanscombe is a very important and vital area for hundreds of very important and vital species of wildlife, and recognised as such by Natural England who have recommended that Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest and we must protect one of our most important wildlife sites from being lost forever. We have a duty to future generations to preserve our precious wildlife nature reserves which are fast dwindling and need our every support to sustain them and help them to thrive. Please do not build on this area of vital importance and destroy one of the most beautiful environments for our unique and precious Great British wildlife, as once gone, we will never be able to recover this amazing and extraordinary area and the wildlife it is home to."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Smith
"Dear Inspectorate, I would like to voice my personal and professional concern over the removal of a site which has been recommended to become a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) by Natural England (Feb 2021). This site is home to an endemic species of spider (Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which only occurs in one other site in the UK. As these two site constitute the whole global range of this species it is listed by the international organisation which assigns threat categories as Critically Endangered, more so than the Giant Panda, Orangutan or many of the other species that you have heard of in the media. This is our chance to maintain our biodiversity. Particularly as we have a legal responsibility to do so. From a personal level, I was born and grew up in Kent and going to see places like this was a real treat and allowed me to develop my interest in nature. I wish for more children to have this ability particularly at a time when more than ever feel disconnected (RSPB 2018 report). These children will have a longer lasting impression of their time at the wetland than they would at a theme park. Few people go into theme park management but many go on to be ecologists/naturalists. Yours sincerely Dr. Jeremy Smith"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Carruthers
"With Greater London increasingly built up, The Swanscombe Peninsula is one of vanishingly few places to retain a 'wild' character that lie within easy reach by train. For this reason, it provides an escape from city life for recreation that is essential, and cannot be substituted by manicured parks or farmed countryside. Swanscombe is home to a unique assemblage of species - many rare and endangered, and some critically so, such as the distinguished jumping spider. Biodiversity loss is recognised by the World Economic Forum as one of the top five global risks facing humanity. We must take every opportunity to protect the precious diversity of life that has evolved on our planet over hundreds of millions of years. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. It would be tragic to have it concreted over and to lose this nationally-important habitat. It is not the right place for a theme park. Swanscombe is recommended for SSSI designation. This means it is nationally significant. A theme park might provide a fun day out, but it is not nationally significant, and should not receive consideration as a nationally significant infrastructure project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Muller
"I am opposed to the proposed development of the Swanscombe marsh as this is the one remaining wetland for the diverse range of beautiful and rare flora and fauna in the area. Over the years I have enjoy regular walks on the marsh, and despite the ever reduced access to areas as signage goes up and our footpath is limited, I still take my children there and we spend time together as a family, away from the traffic and distractions of a technology driven life and explore what nature has to offer, observing the birds and wildlife, noting how the plants ring the changes of seasons and take the time to discuss our wildlife, environment and where the children learn best about the delicate balance of plant, animals and weather. The marsh is also such a vital part of our family well being, where we ‘check-in’ with each other and a place where my children connect with nature. Without the marsh we loose a valuable local resource used by so many people but more importantly, our nature looses its home forever. This area is naturally designed to flood and thrive and should be left to let nature nurture the little that is left of this vital wetland."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kenneth Thompson
"Since when did a THEME PARK take precedence over a nationally important wildlife site? If we are to arrest the decline in Britain's wildlife, we have to start by getting our priorities right. How about starting here?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Cannon
"Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Our most important wildlife sites must not be lost. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is also home to other nationally rare invertebrates which make the site of national importance. It is home to 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart, also 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. Our wildlife is already in drastic decline. Swanscombe is totally the wrong place for a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leslie Arkless
"Swanscombe Peninsula which has been recommended by Natural England as a SSSI and needs to be protected for its range of habitats and flora and fauna including nationally scarce and species of conservation concern and therefore should not be the site for London Resort theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Butfoy
"The development of the London Resort will be a disaster for local biodiversity and on a national scale due to the significant invertebrate populations on Swanscombe peninsula. We are in a biodiversity crisis, invertebrates are in cataclysmic decline. Nobody needs another theme park, particularly in such a precarious location so vulnerable to severe weather. The Swanscombe peninsula would instead benefit from becoming a rewilding showpiece right on the door step of the capital, along the lines of oosvaardersplassen in the Netherlands. This application talks about trying to be an exemplar, but when you read the submission no part of the development goes above or beyond the current guidelines, disappointing and in some cases regressive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynnette Johnson
"I do not see the need for yet another theme park especially one that would destroy such a beautiful, ecologically and environmentally important place. I do, however, absolutely see the need to protect places such as this from destruction. Cheap, short-lived thrills at a theme park cannot replace the deep and sustaining power of nature in all her glory. Also, think of the amount of rubbish, most of it non-recyclable, that would be generated at a time when we should be limiting this as much as possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Griffin
"I would like to ask that permission is not given to build a Resort Theme Park on Swanscombe Peninsula. It has been recognised as deserving status as a SSSI by Natural England. To lose more natural space to development when the natural environment and associated species are in rapid decline would be very sad. Every day we nibble away at a little bit more of the natural world and think oh this little bit will not be missed..... it will be."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Pennell
"I can well understand why the Swanscombe Peninsula is designated a site of Special Scientific Interest. As "brownfield" land it might have an inferior image of being "pre-used", but for a long time now ecologists have recognised the true value of brownfield over and above traditional greenfield sites, which frankly are often a biological desert by comparison, owing to intense agricultural pollution. Contamination with agricultural pesticides and herbicides of course speaks for itself, but it was ultimately the powerful fossil-fuel based fertilisers that destroyed our ecology. The artificial boost to our soil's naturally low fertility favoured coarser, more vigorous weeds which quickly swamped and took over our delicate indigenous flora. Coinciding with the wartime "dig for victory", fully 98 percent of our natural wildflower meadows were lost forever, with so many previously familiar species banished into extinction. Having had time to recover and revert to nature, Swanscombe today offers a wide range of flora and fauna, and habitats suitable for wildlife now rare elsewhere, including endangered mammals such as otter and water vole; various species of waterfowl; the statuesque heron and a rich diversity of other birdlife, from goldfinches to kingfishers, kestrels to tawny owls. It is an important breeding site for nationally endangered reptiles and amphibians, and obviously countless invertebrates. In short it boasts a much richer ecosystem than most rural countryside, in particular farmland. For humans Swanscombe provides a rare and FREE recreational space, in nature, away from busy streets - so important, as we realised during the pandemic. We've lost so much of our natural heritage in the South East. Can we really afford to lose a rare site like Swanscombe under yet more concrete? For a frivolous theme park? Would future generations of Londoners forgive us?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Livesey
"To build on an SSSI for a theme park is quite simply ridiculous. Given that the Distinguished Jumping Spider is only found on two sites in the UK, they should both be preserved and conserved. Anything other would be a failure of the state to undertaken its duty to protect a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species. Aside from this, there are plenty of other places (such as intensive farmland with little wildlife value) that could be used as alternative sites. It is not a good look during a "Green Recovery" to build over an SSSI for any development, let alone a collection of rollercoasters."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Bennett
"This is not an ordinary brownfield site, if such a thing exists. It is an incredibly diverse mosaic of wetland and grassland, and supports around 250 invertebrates of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK, 15 red-listed birds (marsh harrier, nightingale, black redstart), and a number of scarce plants. There are bats, reptiles, water voles, and otters at the site. To even consider building something so damaging to the environment in what is one of the few biodiverse oases in north Kent goes against everything that we are supposed to be fighting for. This is not just another brownfield surrounded by new developments. It's a rare gem in its own right and for its wildlife value both locally and nationally. Michael Bennett MSc Environmental Management"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Moira O'Donnell
"I am writing to urge you not to grant planning permission for the London Resort on the site of Swanscombe Marshes. In a post-covid world we need wild open spaces for our health and mental well-being, not theme parks. The UK and indeed the whole world is facing a loss of biodiversity crisis, so in the face of this crisis we should not even be considering the loss of such a nationally important site for birds, plants and invertebrates. I visit Swanscombe Marshes and know first hand what a precious habitat it is, and what it means to so many people."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natalie Clemson
"This is a site of scientific interest due to a plethora of endangered species that rely on this unique habitat for survival. Given the current ecological and climate emergency that has been declared by the government, the continuation of this project on this site would contribute to a further loss of biodiversity. This area provides an opportunity for scientific study that is vital to the survival of several species. Marshland is a valuable habitat and also an effective area when it comes to to storing carbon."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Flint
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife, including over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern. It is also home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. It is also an important site for many other types of fauna and flora, such as birds, reptiles, bats and plants, including many of conservation concern. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. We cannot continue to destroy the planet just for our enjoyment, we have a duty to protect it for all the other species as well."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Kennerley
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife inhabiting a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest that supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. 15 species of red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance occur at the site including Marsh Harrier, Bearded Tit, Nightingale and Black Redstart. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. A theme park can be built anywhere, ideally on brown field land. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park - we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Ridewood
"There is a climate and ecological emergency ,any more building on precious natural land should only be for the absolute necessity,a theme park does not cover this ,please reconsider."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Key
"I believe the application should be rejected on the grounds of the damage it would do to the Swanscombe Peninsula, which Natural England has recommended be made a SSSI. The site consists of a rare mix of habitats due to its former uses and supports a range of species of conservation concern. These include over 250 invertebrate species such as the critically endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider, which is only found at one other site in the UK. There are also 15 red-listed bird species including Nightingale, Bearded Tit, Marsh Harrier and Black Redstart, and 13 scarce vascular plant species such as the Man Orchid. It is also important for reptiles and for mammals such as Bats, Otters and Water Voles. Given that we are already facing catastrophic declines of biodiversity, it is my opinion that we must protect this site and not sacrifice it to a theme park that is non-essential and could be built at a more suitable site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Seddon
"Having lived on another area of marshland, the Walthamstow Marshes in London, for 15 years, I have seen the variety of wildlife this type of environment supports, and its great value to the local community. Neither can be overstated. Swanscombe is recommended to be a SSSI. It is a habitat for hundreds of species of conservation concern. The UK has lost a huge percentage of its flora and fauna over my lifetime, an observable fact that I notice as the seasons change every year. Building a theme park over a site such as Swanscombe is hugely inappropriate for the site and for our times, and I strongly object to it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rae Cecil
"Please think again about destroying this wonderful and unique environment. It has devolved over the years to be a home for numerous plants, insects, birds, mammals and other creatures. Once it has gone it cannot be replaced. Thank you for reading this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rita Belding
"As this is now a Site of Special Scientific Interest why destroy it when we so desperately need to guard and protect our precious countryside which is rapidly being destroyed? There is enough "entertainment" elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Proud
"Swanscombe Marshes is one of the very, very few areas left for nature in the UK. Over 250 species of invertebrate, whose numbers are already of concern, live here. We should be protecting this area not developing it into a money making machine. In the world that we live in today, where the loss of biodiversity is faster than ever before, we must make decisions that halt it. Not only because destruction of more wild places is the right thing to do, but because our own lives are depending on it. When nature collapses, how will we eat? How will we provide for ourselves? The UK is an awful example right now of development vs. Green spaces, let’s not lose another one. I do not want another theme park in the UK. We do not need another theme park. I am will visit areas of natural importance but no money will be made from me or others like me for supposed ‘economy boosting’ evils like this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Ackland
"Following the great news that Swanscombe Marshes have received the SSSI status, I'm appealing to you to leave the area just as it is - an important 'breath of fresh air'. It's so valuable to, not only the wildlife, but to those who visit, allowing visitors to enjoy their time there and leave the crowded streets and towns behind. Surely it will cost very little to leave it as an SSSI and, who knows, in the future it could achieve an Area of Natural Outstanding Beauty status. Please leave it natural."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas A Ingram
"I would like to add my voice in opposition to this proposed development. I am a long term member of the RSPB and have an interest in all wildlife generally. I find it hard to believe that this application could even be considered. Sites like this are rare and take a long time to develop the diversity of wildlife that it sustains, it should be protected. Please don't allow this rare habitat to be destroyed. The development, if it is really needed, should find a brown field site, with good transport links, or not be allowed. Please oppose this application. Tom Ingram"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Douglas
"Swanscombe Peninsula is not an SSSI for nothing, the area deserves to be protected from any ‘built’ development to maintain the wide variety of flora and fauna now, and for future generations. Our wildlife no matter how small the species is disappearing at an alarming rate, anything that is detrimental to the natural environment and habitat of species should be prohibited. Moreover, a theme park brings with it a multitude of issues that will put extra pressure in the local environment - influx of visitors no doubt in their vehicles, pollution, and litter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Willow May
"(Redacted) its hard for me to put this inyo my own words hence i hsve to cut and paste some information about this oroject but please do not underestimate my passion and upset about the proposed building on this amazing area because i am nit able to type well . I was born in gravesend and this area has already seen the woods i used to play in is now part of the channel tunnel rsil link. They ponds the frogs, the owls tje trees the green woodpeckers the song thrushes etc all gone. The chalk pits where dad used to take us to see wildlife on our bikes in the evening the thames way road. This is just two places. So much habitat loss and now this. Humsns are so dreadfully awful. We can choose to save and protect wildlife or just jeep building on nature and benefiting in more money and in the end our greed with ne the ruin of everything.. Those in power please use your power for good. Here is some information. To build on here is one of the eorst decisions you could make. I am not clever but even i know this is madness. Its that obvious. Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- tell them how important it is for the wildlife depends on it. Pick out what concerns you most about the habitats and species at Swanscombe and say why. To help you write your comments, here are some headlines to guide you: Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Abigail Woodman
"In March 2019, the UK Parliament declared a climate emergency. Thinking about how to mitigate the effects of climate change is not a nice to have, it is absolutely essential if we are to avoid catastrophic impacts. Preserving and, wherever possible, increasing biodiversity is a fundamental part of any and all responses to the challenges of climate change. Biodiversity loss cannot be viewed separately to climate change. Tackling climate change and biodiversity loss are going to require decisions that put the needs of the environment far ahead of the entertainment wants of a few people. This is one such decision. It would be unforgivable to allow a theme park to be built on land that Natural England has declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Swanscombe is an open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site's complex human history. Such a unique place, that supports over 250 inveterate species of conservation concern, 15 red-listed birds of conservation concern, 12 bird species of principle importance, 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species and five red-listed plants, as well and the other wildlife species that call it home, should not be destroyed so that 1 species – humans – can spend a day at a theme park. PY Gerbeau, chief executive of London Resort Company Holdings, says that the project will deliver 'a net gain in biodiversity'. And while it may be true that the spreadsheet tools have been manipulated to demonstrate a net gain, it cannot be true that destroying unique habitats will benefit nature; quite the opposite. Anyone claiming that they have shown how they will 'transform a contaminated, former industrial site' with 'an investment that runs into millions' is clearly blind to the natural world; nature has already transformed the space. I say it should be left in peace to flourish."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caroline Day
"I am writing as someone who does not live in the area but is concerned about Swanscombe since it homes species of regional and national significance which will be adversely affected by development. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. Whilst developers often cite brownfield sites as preferable to Green Belt sites for development, in this case the fact the site is 'brownfield' is in many ways misleading since it has developed as a critically important habitat for many species. With a large number of wild species in dramatic decline, it is imperative that habitat loss is brought to a halt. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest which recognises it's unique value. We must protect our most important wildlife sites like this from being lost forever. Swanscombe Marshes support over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Therefore, the site must be assessed in terms of its national significance and value, not just it's worth as a local recreational destination. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. Additionally, it also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I urge you to take into account the viewpoints of those outside the immediate area who wish to preserve the unique habitats and wildlife of Swanscombe for generations to come.The whole area must be safeguarded from a development which could be easily accommodated elsewhere, on a site without such value to biodiversity."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Philpott
"These plans for a theme park threaten rare and vulnerable species on a site of special scientific interest. Once they are lost, they are lost forever. Apart from all the tiny invertebrates, which are, of course, so easy to ignore, this is a site which holds nightingales. London does not need yet more attractions. London and Londoners need nature and green spaces. Wildlife needs a home, a home that is not constantly encroached upon by humans - that is what the pandemic has tried to teach us. Are you listening or is it business as usual?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr. Tony Harwood
"The very special and perhaps unique landscape and ecology of the Swanscombe peninsula make it inevitable that significant harm would result if this scheme were to proceed. There exist other more sustainable sites, better related to the road and rail network, where a development on this scale can be achieved without as significant an impact upon landscape, biodiversity and the highway network. Further, severe weather risk and access and egress challenges make the tidal floodplain of the Thames an inhospitable location for a leisure park on this scale. Having studied the supporting plans, this scheme falls short of an exemplar in environmental terms and particularly in relation to ecology. The disturbance, lighting, 'tidying', application of pestcides and fragmentation by roads described in these plans would inflict a profoundly negative impact upon such a special landscape and ecology, which is a remarkable survival so close to our capital city."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Griffin
"I intend to outline my concerns about Swanscombe Marshes being developed because of the rare nature of this costal habitat, and the wildlife that it supports. As I am not local I am not able with certainty to comment on the impact it will have on the local people who use it for various recreational activities, however it would appear from comments made on social media that it is used for walking, running cycling, and for getting closer to nature, the benefits of which have been widely reported over the past 12 months. The Swanscombe Peninsular supports a large range of wildlife, some of which is extremely rare or in serious decline. This is mainly due to it's location, and the fact that it is a rare costal habitat. Swanscombe is home to over 200 invertebrate species which are of conservation concern, including one species of jumping spider which is found in only one other location in the country. The area also supports some of the rarer British breeding bird species, such as marsh harrier, bearded tit, black redstart, and nightingale. Nightingale have suffered a 90% decline since the 1970's, so every site where they are found has become extremely important for the survival of this species as a breeding bird in the UK. Plants on the peninsula include marsh orchid and 5 other red listed species. Mammal wise the peninsula is home to water voles, which have decline by over 90% over the last 30 years. Otters and several species of bat can also be seen there. There is also a locally important population of reptiles. Due to some of the species mentioned above, and the rarity of the habitat, Natural England have recommended that the area be given SSSI statues. In summary I feel that the Swanscombe Peninsular is the wrong place for development of any sort, because of the rarity of the habitat, and the wildlife that is supports. The natural word, nationally and globally is coming under increasing pressure for a number of reasons, habitat loss being a significant one. This means areas like Swanscombe are becoming increasingly imports, not only for the benefit of the wildlife, but also the people who will enjoy this green space."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Jervis
"My reasons for objecting:- Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- 1. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England has recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. We MUST protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. 2. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. 3. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 4. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. 5. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I know this area and fully appreciate its value to the local community, which depends on the Peninsula for its recreation, passions, health and wellbeing. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is therefore more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. No this proposal. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Moore
"The Prime Minister promised a green rebuiding of the economy but yet again it seems this is just paying lip service. HS1 & 2 have already destroyed acres of valuable & unreplaceable habitat and if this plan is allowed to go ahead Swanscombe marshes will be added to the roll call of destruction. This site should be a SSSI and treasured for its unique habitat, fauna & flora. It cannot be replaced once destroyed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Wallace
"A theme park could be put anywhere but this is a really special site for wildlife. It's about time we stood up for our rarer species which are declining and threatened with extinction. I would like my children and grandchildren to be able to hear a nightingale and a shrill carder bee as well as all the other rare and wonderful species contained on this site. Ex-industrial land often provides some of the richest habitat and is not a wasteland. It's also valuable in that it has not been dowsed in insecticides and enriched with fertilisers which make agricultural land a poor environment for wildlife. Please do not allow this development to go ahead at Swanscombe."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Kaye
"I want to add my voice to calls to protect Swanscombe. I used to visit this wonderful place when my children were small. It is a rare place that holds so many different and contrasting natural habitats. So many of the birds found here are on the endangered lists. My children had their best experiences here and started their own learning course, mainly on reptile and Bats. They also loved to look out for 'jumping spiders' I am no longer based nearby, but stillron visit when coming back to see friends and family. I have found few others places that give such a fantastic range of habitats , and so many important species.Environmental agencies are all lining up with more scientific info to outline why Swanscombe is so important for everyone. Please listen. We're in a climate emergency, please help slow the damage to our future. thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. Erica C D Hunter
"I am writing to voice my deep concern about the proposal to build the London Theme resort park on Swanscombe Marshes Peninsula. This would effectively destroy a very rich habitat, comprising coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that support a wide variety of fauna and flora. It is an important wildlife site; these are diminishing at an alarming rate across the UK due to development and construction programmes. With its proximity to London, it is vital that the site be retained in its present state; it is invaluable as an environmental resource, also affording youngsters to gain experience first-hand of fauna and flora which include: - the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. - 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. -13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. - locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The decision to turn Swanscombe Marshes Peninsula into a theme park flies in the face of the recommendation by Natural England that it is a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Its development as a theme park would mean the loss of a site that is important for teaching children about the environment. Given its proximity to London it could be a major centre of learning for schools as well as providing the natural surrounds for everyone to appreciate. Natural environments are a significant factor in people's wellbeing and health - as the recent pandemic has clearly demonstrated. I urge that Swanscombe Marches Peninsula be retained in their natural state; it is irreplaceable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. Jeremy Bartlett
"Swanscombe Peninsula is a very special place: a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands which have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline yet Swanscombe acts as a wildlife refuge. It must not be damaged or destroyed in order to build yet another theme park. The site is especially important for invertebrates (including more than 250 species of conservation concern) and also supports birds (15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance) and vascular plants (at least 13 nationally scarce species). As a result, it has recently been awarded SSSI status. The Swanscombe Peninsula is also an extremely important green space for local residents - of great value at any time but especially in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Turning the site into a theme park will exclude most of these people from the area and ruin whatever fragments of green space that are left. I urge you to reject these damaging plans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
G Coldham
"I strongly object to this plan by The London Resort We treasure the area just the way it is, and many local residents in the Swanscombe, Northfleet and Gravesend area are vehemently opposed to any such development. The project is viewed as being tacky, mercantile, socially inept and misconceived--- We in NW Kent have no interest in being swamped by irrelevant projects in our region. It is recommended the investors rethink their project, and consider investing in "green" projects or other socially responsible schemes.. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graeme Davis
"I think this application should be rejected on many grounds. Swanscombe marshes are not just a site of national importance, but national importance containing many scarce and endangered species. As well as this the habitat itself is increasing rare and threatened within itself. There are 250 important species in this site found so far, and because of this it was no surprise that it was given SSSI status which should have been granted many years ago! It is just one of 2 sites for the spider Attulus distinguendus, should this site be reduced to one then we can directly blame this site for the extinction of a species nationally as 1 site is not going to keep a viable population going for long. 2 sites is a struggle for a breeding population on its own! At a time when we are meant to be helping biodiversity this application is perverse and should never have even got to this stage. I hope that some sense is seen before we loose yet another species."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline Abbott
"Hello Do we need a London Resort theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. No we do not! This is another money making scheme by greedy entrepreneurs to ruin a newly designated Site of Special Scientific Interest. Swanscombe Marshes not only gives pleasure to many people as well as, more importantly give life to many creatures. It must be kept. Regards"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Howard Morgan
"It is quite clear the wildlife value of this site, in both national and international terms, greatly surpasses its somewhat limited value as a place to build a recreational park. While the former cannot be assigned a cash value in terms of return for investment, its vaue to posterity is huge, in terms of the flora and fauna it supports. This is not a resource to be carelessly squandered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Hart
"Please SAVE Swanscombe Penninsula - OUTSTANDING HABITATS for insects and wildlife - RARE SPECIES of insect here - WILDLIFE AND INSECTS ARE THREATENED WITH SPECIES LOSS AND DECLINE - PROTECTION NEEDED NOW WE ALL KNOW HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS AND HOW FAST IT IS HAPPENING - VITAL TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY AND SHARING WITH CHILDREN AND THE FUTURE - ONLY ONE SWANSCOMBE PENNINSULA ! SO RARE! PLEASE SAVE IT"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Hayes
"I grew up around Swanscombe Peninsula and I know that it is a very special area - but even I didn't realise quite how special. I cannot think of a worse location for a theme park, the loss of precious habitat and biodiversity for the sake of what? It is unjustifiable in a climate where we know the value of nature and the price of wanton destruction. A theme park on an SSI - especially when there are many areas of brownfield land locally that isn't sensitive that could be requisitioned to build it, the RSPB and other conservation organisations have already made the case for Swanscombe Peninsula's importance, it would be utterly pig headed and environmentally tone deaf to destroy it for a theme park (or any development) - what kind of legacy is that for future generations?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda McKee
"I am not local but I know this place. It might appear a wasteland to some but I have spent Sunday afternoons there and it is teeming with wildlife. The birds will not visit if there are no insects which would be a shame. I am also preplexed as to how a SSSI can be given to an area yet has no protection from planners. I am sad that yet another chunk of Kent might go under the cement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Ffoulkes
"I wish to object to the application to build the London Resort theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. We are in the midst of an assault on wild places by developers which will reduce our ability to mitigate climate change and to promote biodiversity. The Peninsula is a precious haven for wildlife. That Natural England has stated that it should be declared a SSSI confirms its value. I know the marshes well and have spent time observing the birdlife. It is home to many endangered species including marsh harriers, bearded tits and nightingales. It also supports hundred of invertebrates including the Critically Endangered distinguished jumping spider. If this development were to go ahead, it would ruin the peninsula. No mitigation measures suggested by the developers could possibly compensate for the damage ton wildlife and biodiversity. For the sake of this generation and future generations, I urge you to reject this application. One private company's profits surely cannot be allowed to trump the value of this rare habitat for all the inhabitants of the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Yetman
"I am making a written representation against the application for development consent as I believe that the diverse precious wildlife the Swanscombe Peninsula sustains, and the associated mental and physical wellbeing this area gives to myself and those able to visit, must be given greater value than a theme park. I believe that the Swanscombe Peninsula is the wrong place for a theme park. I discovered the Swanscombe Peninsula for myself last summer 2020. Having been shielding for the previous 5 months, I started to explore my local area more and visited the Swanscombe Peninsula following recommendations from many others passionate about this beautiful area. I have been amazed by the variety of wildlife I have seen there, including the scarce bryony ladybird, shield bugs, numerous species of bees, lizards, damselflies and dragonflies, grasshoppers and many species of birds. Visiting this local area and being able to enjoy my passions of walking, nature observation and nature photography, helped me recover both physically and mentally from what had been a very tough period, and the Peninsula has become a place I treasure as a personal place of calm, enrichment, enjoyment and discovery. Living in Gravesend town, I am able walk to shops and work but have few green open spaces, so to lose this local area would be of huge cost to myself and many others locally. With global environmental concerns linked to climate change and numerous studies linking mental wellbeing with nature and ‘green’ spaces, the ability to be able to enjoy nature and to be able to enjoy it locally and thus reduce carbon footprint is of increasingly recognized importance. Since my first visit to the Swanscombe Peninsula, I have learnt a lot more about its National Significance. I have learnt that it supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider, which is found on only one other site in the UK. 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance breed there, including Marsh harriers and Bearded Reedlings and nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found there including Man orchid. Further, the area sustains mammals including Water vole and Otter. It is the uniqueness of the habitat – an open mosaic of wetlands, grasslands, scrub and coastal habitats -that sustains such diversity of wildlife and flora. It is this uniqueness that means it is not replaceable by any attempts at creating alternative habitats and relocation of species. This area is of such national significance, that Natural England have recently notified it as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. I am passionate about environmental and conservation issues, being on the Committee of the Gravesend RSPB Local Group, and concerned about the national decline in many species and increasing loss of established habitats. Development on this land would be against my personal values and principles. This wonderfully diverse environment and the flora and fauna it supports is precious and I believe we have a responsibility to protect it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Wilson
"I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed London Resort on the Swanscombe Peninsula. I have lived in Greenhithe, right next to the proposed development site, since 2004, and have long been concerned by the amount of building taking place in the area. Open space is increasingly at a premium and pollution is a worsening problem (as was revealed late in 2020 in this article: https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/18891016.air-pollution---towns-least-air-pollution-revealed-new-ground-breaking-study/). I fear that the London Resort will only make these issues worse. Of even greater concern to me, however, is the impact that the development will have on Swanscombe Marshes. The marshes have long been a ‘hidden gem’ that my wife and I have enjoyed visiting, but the past year has highlighted how truly important they are to us and to the local community – since March 2020 the marshes have provided the one truly open and safe space that we have been able to visit. They have been a key location for regular exercise, and we have seen many other locals taking advantage of this natural treasure on their doorstep too. The positive effect that the marshes have had on our mental well-being cannot be overstated – being able to be outside in such a beautiful, natural environment and to regularly see rare wildlife such as marsh harriers, nightingales, dartford warblers and voles, as well as hundreds of nesting birds and migrants, has been truly uplifting. I have visited a number of nature reserves over the years and grew up close to the Lake District and I truly believe that Swanscombe Marshes is one of the richest natural habitats I have seen. I feel lucky to have been able to see how things change here day by day, throughout the year. The idea, then, of a theme park being built here is terrible. As the recent recognition of the marshes as a Site of Special Scientific Interest shows, the ecology of Swanscombe Marshes is a national asset. I have read the London Resort’s proposal that the site will be developed in a sympathetic manner, with natural offsetting, etc, but the problem with this is that the marshes have evolved as a natural habit over time: it is their nature as a mosaic of habitats that makes them so rich, and disrupting some or all of these habitats – however good intentions to ‘make good’ are – will take more than it gives, and we will all lose so much: local residents will lose access to somewhere that has become a haven to many, important animal species will lose their homes and Britain will lose an important part of its natural heritage. With a dedicated conversation effort, I believe that Swanscombe Marshes can become something even better – a home for more (and more diverse) wildlife and a wonderful, important place for local people. This is what we need in Greenhithe and Swanscombe – a natural haven, not a theme park. Thank you for your time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Bourne
"I object to this development. Once it is built on, we cant get the nature back. Wildlife is in steep decline, we need to protect these areas, not destroy them! We really must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost.It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance.Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart.13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid.It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mihaela Sorlea-Tentis
"It feels that in the last year, every green bit in this area is turned into either a residency estate or a development of some sort. The Swanscombe Peninsula is the only green place left in this area. I've been walking almost every day there and there are always runners and walker - it's a space for recreation and peace. It's the home of more then 250 invertebrates, from which some on the brink of extinction. We live in one of the most polluted areas in UK and with that, we want to take down the last bit of trees and vegetation that might suck some of this CO2 in the atmosphere. We can not do this - we are putting blocks and pavement on every bit of grass. Stop please!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Alfrey
"I object to this application , the site is an SSSI with 250 species of conservation concern. These species need to be protected ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Harris
"Swanscombe Peninsula is a uniquely varied habitat which has been recommended to be designated an SSSI. It is immensely important for the wide variety of wildlife it supports. I do not live locally but I am all too well aware of the drastic decline of wildlife across the country. To lose this site would be environmentally catastrophic and a shameful betrayal of future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pureflow Commissioning Ltd
"To whom it may concern, We strongly object to the London Resort application. We are a business with over 30 employees, 8 which are office based at Unit 7, Swanscombe Business Centre and 4 of whom reside within a 10-minute drive of this office. The location is perfect for our company and our staff especially with the fantastic transport links of the A2, M25, Swanscombe train station and Ebbsfleet International which allows access to London within 30 minutes. This helps us enormously to run an efficient business and losing these advantages is likely to have a detrimental effect to our operations, workload and profit and could therefore put many jobs at risk. We have searched extensively for properties of similar size and price and there is absolutely nothing available. They simply do not exist. An example is office space available at Crossways Business Park but at a premium of 3 x our current rate (rent is currently £7500 per annum), despite being only a 5-minute drive away. We have spent a lot of time, effort and money investing in our current property and any location move would incur costs associated with moving, downtime, redecorations and furnishing of a new space. The main focus for our business is to help companies improve energy efficiency and to reduce environmental impact which we feel very strongly about, this in turn brings us to another particularly important factor which is the damage the project will do to the fantastic wildlife on the Swanscombe Peninsula. We welcome the fact that it has been granted SSSI status. We expect that many of our neighbours are in a very similar situation and ask for serious consideration of the points made above that are likely to affect many, many lives. Yours sincerely Ben Massett Director Pureflow Commissioning Ltd"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Raymond M Morris
"This area supports many rare and interesting creatures not found throughout the UK, eg the jumping spider Attulus distinguendus. We have so few areas of rich habitat left but plenty of brown field sites to develop. During these last 12 months areas such as Swanscomb Common have become a life line for people to sustain them through hard times. Please consider other areas to develop and leave this beautiful place to nature and for people to enjoy for many years into the future. We can do little to affect wild areas around the world from being destroyed BUT we can save what nature we have here in UK. This would be a shining example of how the UK Government is helping in the fight against climate change in the forthcoming summit to be hosted in our country. Let us lead the world by our example. Thank you. ???????????????"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rodney Aldis
"I used to live in Kent and I am aware of how so many sites with high natural values have been lost to development. I do not think we can afford to loose sites such as Swanscombe. I note that Natural England has declared that it should be a SSI, confirming it as one of our country’s best wildlife sites. We need to add to Kent's natural capital value not destroy it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemarie Kyles
"As well as being an area of great biodiversity, in terms of flowers, birds and crucially insects, the marshes help to prevent flooding by absorbing water and preventing it leaving the area. It is also an area enjoyed by local people who can go out in it for exercise and fresh air as well as to observe nature. This has been shown to be of vital importance during the Covid-19 pandemic for the health and well-being of the nation. In a recent report, Prof Sir Partha Dasgupta, of the University of Cambridge says prosperity has come at a "devastating" cost to the natural world. He said the Government “need to account fully for the impact of our interactions with nature across all levels of society.” Swanscombe Marshes are important for wildlife and this should be put above having a theme park on this land. You cannot reproduce an area like this afterwards, once it is lost it means some plants, birds and insects may be gone forever. Sites of Special Scientific interest should be spared development, otherwise what is the point of them? In my opinion experiences of the natural world and all it's amazing diversity, count for a great deal more than developments such as theme parks. Let's not turn a unique area of coast which is a sanctuary for wildlife into an amusement park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ross Facer
"To whom it may concern, For over a year now we have been in a national pandemic. Have you not realised or learnt during this time the importance of our green spaces and the natural world for people's mental health and the importance of it for future generations? We don't need another theme park (there are plenty already in the country which people can visit if they wish to do so) - we need to preserve our greenspaces and natural habitat more than ever - for us and our ever declining wildlife. Ross Facer"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sam Mckee
"I am very surprised that given this site has a SSSI attached to it that it can be overturned to accommodate what is an unnecessary Disney like construction. If there are no insects then there will be no bird. It is a great shame that commercial interests over ride natural habitat and wildlife in Kent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Grist
"This particular area (Swanscombe peninsula wetland and dry scrubland) is extremely important to me and my family. It is one of the last undeveloped natural areas we have in Kent and extremely important for the future of the endangered and threatened wildlife species we encounter here. Also this unique marsh area is a vital natural flood plane. This peaceful, tranquil sanctuary that so many find vital in their quest for an escape from the constant bombardment of corporate opportunity and negative impact building on any wild spaces we have left which is very few. This plays a huge importance towards positive mental health and (thus also physical health)that only nature alone can provide us with. The more building and destruction that takes place, will create further negative impact on pollution levels (we already stand at one of the highest in UK) in this area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shirley Broughton
"My reasons for objecting:- Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife- 1. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England has recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. We MUST protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. 2. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. 3. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 4. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. 5. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I visit Swanscombe regularly and fully appreciate its value to the local community, which depends on the Peninsula for its recreation, passions, health and wellbeing. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline, and it is therefore more important than ever to spare our national treasures! The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. No. No. No. To this proposal. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey J Morgan
"Although I am not local to the area, I am fortunate enough to live in a rural area. During lockdown this has meant that not only have I had ample green space to exercise in but that I also look out on it. The benefits to both my physical and mental health have been huge. There is no doubt that it's helped me to get through this awful time. For the people living around this area the marsh has given them a space to share with nature and that's even more vital to people who have to live in cities and built up areas. At a time when people are truly realising the true value of green space for their health and wellness it is totally counterintuitive to destroy it for profit. It is a site filled with amazing wildlife and a microcosm of everything that is so valuable and precious. Please do not allow this site to be lost. Wildlife and people need it so badly and we must protect valuable sites for the generations yet to come"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Scott
"I am a resident of south-east London and my family and I use Swanscombe Marshes for recreation, fresh air, and to encounter wildlife. It is a really important area for us. It is accessible by train and on foot. It is within reach of hundreds of thousands of people and has enormous amenity value for health and wellbeing. The London Resort will obliterate these benefits. On a recent visit my young sons and I watched marsh harriers and herons hunting over the reedbeds, a kestrel hovering over the brownfield site, heard warblers and rare bearded tits. I do not believe that the ecological value of this site will be 'enhanced' by the London resort. For example, Black Duck Marsh will lose some of its area as well as the deciduous woodland and scrub surrounding it, it will be disturbed by 'enhancement' activities, and it will become an isolated area surrounded by human development - bright, noisy development in the case of London Resort. The loss of the brownfield site will have a huge impact on rare invertebrates as highlighted by the recent designation as an SSSI. The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated that green space and nature matter to so many people, and that we cannot continue to assault nature in the name of development and economic growth. Please consider the long term value of Swanscombe Marshes to the current and future residents of SE London and north Kent, and its irreplaceable value to the whole UK as a haven for rare wildlife. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Murray
"In a world where our environment is rapidly changing... for the worse, I strongly wish to convey my concerns over this application with the hope that the planning committee do the same and reject it due to the following: Here are my concerns: -Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. -Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. -It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. -Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. -13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. -It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I am aware that the one positive attribute that this development will bring is tourism and ultimately a profitable revenue but no amount of money will bring back what we stand to lose if this goes ahead. A more suitable location must be found - NOT SWANSCOMBE MARSHES."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barney Sands & Hartridge Ltd
"I am a Director of Barney Sands & Hartridge Limited. We are the owners and occupiers of Unit P1-P2, Lower Rd, Northfleet Industrial Estate, Northfleet, Gravesend DA11 9SN, under a freehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. We are an Accident Repair Centre, British Kitemark approved, based in a prominent location on Northfleet Industrial Estate. Our site has ample parking for both staff and customers. We have been established since 1938 and have built up our business and reputation through the local community. At present our business is thriving and our main priority is to keep adding to our growing clientele network. Our work is achieved through securing insurance contracts based on postcoded areas. We also have a lot of work coming through the local community who want to have repairs carried out privately. Our business employs 18 staff, the majority of which have stayed loyal to the business for between 15 and 45 years. An upheaval would be detrimental to our business due to loss of insurance contracts, valued customers and staff. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain both customers and staff. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Thorpe
"I think it’s appalling that a theme park would even be considered for this site. It has been proven to be immensely important for wildlife of all kinds and was just designated a SSSI. If you can destroy such an important site and kill so many creatures for entertainment then where is safe? These designations must mean something. During lockdowns people have needed green spaces more than ever for their mental and physical health. To replace a free and accessible nature reserve with a building site for years and later a concrete, life-free theme park with no-doubt prohibitive fees for most would be removing an important asset for local people. Nobody has any idea what the entertainment industry will look like post-covid so this could easily become another white elephant for this government. Wasted money for a project that does nobody any good, but comes at the expense of the natural world. Ahead of COP26 Britain must prove we value the environment and wildlife and all the solutions they offer to tackling climate change. How can anyone justify building a new theme park here? There are many existing already very nearby what good would another do. We all need nature but we most definitely do not all need yet another theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David French
"- We are living in a time where there is an unprecedented impact of human activity causing a decline in biodiversity equal to or greater than any major extinction period in the Earth's history. This is realised by the majority of UK citizens, and I would argue that any right-minded person would recognise that preserving diverse habitats and species is of far greater significance to the UK than an amusement park. Furthermore, destruction of this habitat is at odds with the UK's legal commitment to maintaining and improving biodiversity. - Creating an amusement park benefits a small number of people who would like to or could afford to visit, whereas maintaining biodiversity by this habitat remaining in-tact benefits not just the people who will visit, but everyone around the world. Most importantly, an in-tact marsh ecosystem will survive for generations to come, whereas a theme park will not and this marsh ecosystem will never recover. Thus it is vital to consider that future generations will look at the decision to destroy this place as abhorrent. - I do not believe that the construction of an amusement park represents a greater amenity value for the location than that of the natural habitat provided by the marshes. - I do not believe that land which is currently used for public amenity should be reserved for the use of private individuals or corporations. Similarly, I do not believe that corporations or private individuals have a right to change or destroy places of public amenity for their own gains."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Noden
"As someone who has turned to nature during the on going pandemic as a way of improving his mental wellbeing, I find the possible removal of a site not far away that has provided the same benefits to local people in order for a theme park to be built completely staggering. Aside from the obvious environmental destruction of an area rich in biodiversity, the harm to wildlife and removal of an area used by countless migrating birds, the simple fact that along the river Thames countless housing is being built without a thought for recreational spaces, access to nature, transport infrastructure, in an area blighted by congestion caused by issues on the m25/Dartford tunnel/QE11 bridge. The addition of a theme park attracting millions of people will cause absolute chaos, it is clearly the wrong area and the wrong thing. I look forward to years of traffic problems, noise and anti-social behaviour complaints from the new housing developments that will be effected by this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Claudia Mitchell
"I wish to register my objection to the proposed development of a theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. This is one of the few remaining biodiverse brownfield sites in the Thames Estuary not already damaged by development. It harbours important populations of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and plants, including endangered species. It was recently deemed by Natural England to meet SSSI criteria. This is not the right place for a theme park, or indeed any other development. I fail to see how such a frivolous venture as a theme park can be considered a nationally significant infrastructure project. What does that say about our nation? The short-term thrills of a fun-fair should be far outweighed by the long-lasting satisfaction of nurturing the wealth of wildlife that exists in this special place. Swanscombe Peninsula should be protected for nature in perpetuity. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. I have witnessed that decline in my own lifetime, and it is a constant source of great personal sadness. The Prime Minister has pledged to protect biodiversity (https://www.leaderspledgefornature.org/). This is a perfect opportunity to do so. Conversely, allowing the theme park development to go ahead would seriously undermine that pledge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily Pettit
"Looking into the future post-COVID, I have no interest in visiting any theme park, and will not be planning any trips to such places. There are more than enough of them to go around. I would much rather plan a trip around visiting a place of unique natural beauty, ecosystem importance, and cultural significance that not only supports wildlife and natural system flows, but also provides a place for local residents to unwind and relax. Swanscombe Marshes is somewhere I would pay the costs of airfare, car rental, hotel, to visit, because there is nowhere quite like it. The chance to visit a vibrant, crucial ecosystem in a country with ever-dwindling wild places; to see rare plants and animals; to explore a place of significance; those opportunities are the ones that make travel so special. To have such a place near London, with strong local support and dedication - what a gift. Why destroy that?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Jones
"I was brought up in a couple of locations on the North Kent coast in the 1950s and 60s and as a child became familiar with marshland habitats, mainly through expeditions with friends where we explored and discovered the rich wildlife which inhabited the marshes / salt marsh and aquatic habitats. I treasure the memory of seeing water voles spiraling through clear water of freshwater dykes to the west of Whitstable and exotic birds like stone curlew, snow buntings, and bearded tits. And this was all at the tender age of 6 - 9 years and those days and experiences have left me with a deep love of the natural world since. I'm taken aback that in this day and age such an application should reach this stage. Much of what I identified with as a child has gone. Kent over the past 60 years has experienced intense development, particularly from urban development, road / motorway construction and intensive agriculture, so its questionable whether it still merits the accolade of 'The Garden Of England.' This development will further erode what's left of its distinctive character and deplete its biodiversity. Coastal marshes are underappreciated by those who lack the knowledge and understanding of not only there rich wildlife but also their special landscape value. I will be upset if this application is supported and further disillusioned regarding fine words and emerging environmental policy from Government."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacky Langton
"I am a member of the Kent Botanical Recording Group, I remember a Group Meeting in 2015 to Swanscombe Peninsular and am very concerned about the NSIP submission for a London Resort theme park there. It is an area of extreme natural history interest, recently designated as an SSSI, and it is completely inappropriate for development as a theme park. The area is certainly not just a brownfield site, but a wonderful mosaic of habitats where a huge variety of wildlife has established itself. Recorded here are 13 Nationally Scarce species of plants which includes 5 red-listed species, 15 red-listed species of Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance, there are locally important populations of reptiles and of bats, water vole and otters, invertebrates include 250 Species of Conservation Concern. In view of the fact that wildlife is rapidly declining in Britain, it is vital that this site, of huge scientific interest and value, should be protected. As Natural England has now confirmed the SSSI designation the submission should be reviewed in the light of the knowledge that the site is a unique, immensely important area for wildlife, and must therefore be conserved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Eileen Payne
"Life is changing whereby money buys anything, i.e. the destruction of the planet. Education of the younger generations to preserve their world is work in progress, but what IS lacking is serious work on educating the thirty - fifty year olds that their selfish behaviour is, without doubt, destroying the opportunity of life for future generations. We keep bees and know that the actions of people around us, burning plastics, using insecticides and cutting down trees is impacting on the bees' well being."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Povey
"I am a local resident and I work at the industrial estate adjacent to swanscombe marshes. When things start to get me down at work I use the peninsular for the peace and quiet and clear my head. It brings back memories of the good times I had with my wife and children walking and enjoying the solitude and nature walks that it gives seeing how many different bugs and animals/birds that we could see. It brings joy to me to go out there with my family and grandchildren as it has for the past 30 years. I feel that it needs to be left as it is now and not have any theme park built which will cause noise and light pollution and congestion to the area. I therefore ask you to reject the planning permission from London resorts"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Kahan
"I am writing to express my concerns about the application of The London Resort, Planning Inspectorate ref: BCO 80001 and wish to make a representation against the application. As a member of the Kent Wildlife Trust and the RSPB I am deeply concerned about the loss of the natural habitat of so many species on Swanscombe Peninsula if the development is allowed to be built. The area is a rich breeding area for many red-listed birds of Conservation concern and other species which are very important including the nightingale, Marsh Harriers and the bearded tit. This area is a haven for many invertebrates and small mammals who are so important to the bio-diversity and eco-system of the area, many of whom are endangered. It is for that reason that Natural England has recommended that the area be designate a Site of Special Scientific Interest. I cannot believe in this day and age when it has been proved that nature and engaging with nature is vital for the mental health and well being of our nation that this application is even being considered. Now an area that offers so much is going to be destroyed for a theme park. I appreciate it will bring jobs but at what cost. The infrastructure of the area just cannot take this development, it is crowded enough as it is at the moment with traffic and it is during a lockdown. I appeal that common sense will prevail and that preserving our rich habitat and wildlife will be far more important that an area for pleasure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Hutchinson
"When there is such a rich collection of varying environments supporting a wide range of endangered and interesting species, surely something as frivolous could be built elsewhere? Somewhere incorporating an area already built upon, such as disused factories etc? It might not be as easy as paving over a grassy area, but before long we won't have any grassy areas if the easy option is always taken! Please consider the future and species other than humans who cannot speak up for themselves."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Bird
"I know very little about the area in question but if Natural England thinks it ought to be an SSSI , that is enough information to encourage me to verbally protest against the proposed London Resort Theme Park, we need more space for the natural world!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Slade
"Swanscombe Marshes are a site of special scientific interest. This means there are many plant, insect and animal species that are rare or endangered, including the jumping spider. This is a very precious place. We need to protect these endangered plants and animals because once they are gone there is nothing we can do to bring them back, they are gone forever when they could have been protected. A theme park can be built elsewhere and this important wild place cannot be destroyed for the sake of a theme park. I have not visited the marshes but live in Kent and will definitely be visiting when restrictions are lifted. Wild places like this are not only important for the rare species that live there but also for people to visit and enjoy. I know I would much rather visit Swanscombe marshes than a theme park and so would many other people. This important site must be protected and preserved so that people can continue to enjoy it and the plants and animals that live there can continue to thrive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Robinson
"I live locally and am considered to be knowledgable enough of that environment to be asked to guide scouting groups. Swanscombe Marshes is an incredibly diverse environment for wildlife, with coast, wetlands, meadows and historic ruins. We need all that existing space to allow that diversity to survive. Birds fly over, unseen insects flee, discarded crab shells. It soaks up people too, whose space has been endlessly eroded by development. To see the tidal Thames and diverse habitats warms the soul more than the empty chrome and concrete of a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Inglis
"The idea of destroying or damaging an SSSI in order to create a theme park is quite astonishing. Theme parks can be set up anywhere, and in any case are purely for human entertainment. SSSIs are irreplaceable habitats for other species, who have no way of protecting themselves or their habitats from human depredation. We all live on the same earth - let's learn to share it with all the rest of God's creatures."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rax Green
"I strongly object to any encroachment on the breeding ground of the distinguished jumping spider, considering it is Critically Endangered and found at only one other site in the whole UK. This is an important refuge for many other species and has been recommended to become a SSSI. It should not be turned into a theme park as it is much more valuable the way it is."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Garrett
"Swanscombe Marshes is a nationally important site for wildlife, it has been declared a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). These areas are declared Nationally important for a reason, they are becoming rarer and rarer due to over development. These sites have proved vital to all our mental health during the pandemic. Places such as Swanscombe Marshes have been one of the few things that have kept me sane during the lockdown, I personally couldn't have functioned with out places like this and I know I am not alone. If this development is allowed to go ahead then the area will be changed forever, it will never be the same again. There are derelict sites that will be much better suited for a development such as this. Please consider the negative impact a development such as this will have on such a sensitive area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Robinson
"I oppose this development, as it will destroy a site which is rich in wildlife and one of the best in the UK. I visit Swanscombe Marshes, to be in a green space and to see its wildlife - it is home to many rare birds, mammals, insects (including the Distinguished jumping spider Attulus distinguendus, which is only found on one other site in the UK) and plants. This has recently been reflected in the site being designated as a SSSI by Natural England. The UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world and sites like this need to be protected and not built on. A theme park will have a significant carbon footprint and should not be classed as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project, as it is not an essential development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barbara Spence
"I am concerned that the UK is not properly recognising our biodiversity emergency. The proposal to build a theme park on such an outstanding site for wildlife is a prime example of this failure. I am an amateur botanist and, as such, am particularly interested in the conservation of plants. Swanscombe Marshes, with its wide variety of habitats, supports a very rich assemblage of plants, including rarities such as Man Orchid, Hairy Vetchling, Narrow-leaved Bird's-foot-trefoil, Narrow-leaved Everlasting-pea and Golden Samphire, to name but a few. It is also a relatively peaceful area in which to walk and experience nature in general. I am also aware that the site is rich in invertebrates, including threatened species. Its recent designation as an SSSI underlines its importance. Surely, this is not the place for a theme park?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Palmer
"My view is that Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife and is vitally important for the wildlife that depends on it. It is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. We must listen and act upon Natural England's recommendation that Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- this recommendation would not have been made lightly. Natural England are doing what we task them to do: protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. Given that Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK and is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates, this site is one of national importance. It also supports breeding sites for 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. Meanwhile 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. More details about Swanscombe’s value for wildlife, are contained in the “Rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula” which was presented to Natural England in February. Thar the destruction of such a species rich and a valuable habitat can be contemplated flies in the face of all recent environmental and wildlife-support policies championed by this Government, and such as the Nature Recovery Network. Let's not give ourselves the challenge of replacing nature, let's save it. The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Lake
"I wish to object strongly to the use of Swanscombe Marshes to build the London Resort Theme Park. This area comprises a range of habitats including coast, saltmarsh, wetlands, grassland and scrub that collectively contain an outstanding range of different species. These include 1000's of types of invertebrate, more than 250 of which are of conservation concern and threatened birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Although designated a brownfield site, it has evolved into an area of the highest quality for wildlife and should be designated an SSSI. The developers claim that areas will remain undeveloped and enhanced - in practice that will mean reduced, fragmented and disturbed. There is a biodiversity crisis, an impending mass extinction. We need to allow wildlife space to exist naturally and to learn about and value it. And humans need wilderness, not a few sterile and crowded areas that are left over after most of the land has been built on."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Mote
"As the Dartford Borough Councillor of the ward in which the proposed ward is being built I want to ensure the commitments make in the resort’s application covering areas including employment, infrastructure and the local environment are adhered to during the application period and if successful during the resort’s build and future maintenance."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Daniel Michael James Harwood
"The UK needs to re- think its direction. We are a divided country with huge areas of social deprivation and inequality. England is one of the richest countries in the world, yet poor physical and mental health are the norm for many. Lockdown has seen many people seek comfort peace and connection in ways which are more meaningful than spending money you haven't got on transient pleasures such as theme parks and junk food. Many- like me- have recently joined the ranks of the plant and wildlife charities and started to engage in volunteer and survey walk. Places like Swanscombe Marshes give peace improve mental and physical health and build connections between people and a love of the natural world. Once you have destroyed a mosaic of habitats like Swanscombe it is gone for ever. But as importantly, I do not not want the marshes to be destroyed because I love spiders, wasps, beetles birds and plants - I care for these non-humans as much as I care for humans. We do not have the right to destroy endangered species like the distinguished jumping spider. Middle class architects and planners and developers might smirk and giggle about people caring for rare spiders. But perhaps right now this country is a little bit tired of middle-aged men in hard hats and bad suits telling us what we should care for."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Judith Clark
"Swanscombe Peninsula is a totally unsuitable location for a theme park. This development will cause significant and permanent damage to nationally and internationally important wildlife and habitats. Biodiversity is in drastic decline, in terms of both species distributions and their abundance. In the built up counties of Kent and Sussex there is already too little space for wild life and it is imperative that what remains should not be lost to development. Natural England has recognised the importance of Swanscombe Peninsula by expanding the boundary of the existing SSSI. This means that the ecological and environmental impacts of the London Resort development need to be reassessed with this enlarged SSSI as a new baseline. The Swanscombe Peninsula is home to an incredibly diverse range of species, including some which are very rare. My particular interest is botany and 13 nationally scarce plant species are found within its boundaries. These include 6 species on the Vascular Plant red list for England: man orchid (endangered); yellow vetchling, hairy vetchling, slender hare's-ear and divided sedge (all vulnerable) and Borrer's saltmarsh-grass (near threatened). The area is also home to rare and endangered species of insects and birds, and locally important populations of retiles, bats, water voles and otters. But it is not just rare species that need to be conserved. Over the 30 years that I have been botanising in Sussex and Kent more and more once common plant species are becoming more and more difficult to find in the countryside. We need to protect common species of plants and animals too, for the pleasure and enjoyment of future generations. Our precious wildlife is far more valuable than any theme park, and we have a moral duty to protect other species for their own sake, as well as for ours."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Gunnell
"I am appalled at the prospect of a London Resort theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. In a time of climate and ecological emergency we should be protecting at ALL COSTS our valuable green spaces such as the Swanscombe Marshes. A theme park, or any development, on such an important wildlife site is contrary to the country's aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect valuable biodiversity. Please refuse this planning application as not being in the best interests of the country."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Gray
"Swanscombe is a diverse range of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub & wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s often complex human activity. It is my understanding that Natural England recently declared Swanscombe a SSSI. We have a duty of care to future generations of this country to protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. As our government has declared, we are in a climate emergency & extinction of species is a huge problem due to both climate change & habitat loss. We are all aware that climate change & habitat loss is already having an impact on the extinction of species both overseas & here in the UK. I'm sure none of us want to explain to our grandchildren that our generation allowed unnecessary projects such as theme parks to destroy important habitats knowing that they were having a detrimental affect on the climate & the diversity of species in the UK. Swanscombe supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is also home to nationally rare & endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps & a number of other invertebrates that make this site of national importance. Swanscombe's breeding bird population includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern & 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have also been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, water vole and otter. During the Covid pandemic I, like the majority of the UK population, have valued our time in the natural environment for exercise, health & most importantly our mental wellbeing. I have not heard anyone say they have missed going to a theme park & neither have I heard anyone ever say that a visit to a theme park boosts their heath & wellbeing. In the UK we have sites once occupied by theme parks falling into disrepair eg Camelot which closed in 2012, leaving its sprawling 140-acre site to fall into disrepair. We must recognise that our precious wildlife & natural environment is more valued by the UK population than a theme park. Swanscombe is also more value as natural environment in helping us to fight the climate emergency than a theme park which will pump yet more carbon into the atmosphere both during its construction and during its day to day operation."
Other Statutory Consultees
Statera Energy/Thurrock Power
"Thurrock Power, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Statera Energy, submitted an application to the Secretary of State for development consent to construct and operate a flexible generation and storage power plant known as Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant, in May 2020. That application was accepted by the Secretary of State, via the Planning Inspectorate, in June 2020 and given the reference EN010092. The application is now in the examination stage. If development consent is granted for the Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant, the plant will be developed on land to the south west of Station Road, near Tilbury in Essex. The London Resort has stated in its Relevant Representation relating to the Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant DCO application, that approximately 25% of London Resort's visitor road traffic is expected to be accommodated at the Port of Tilbury. There is therefore potential for the construction and operation of the London Resort project to have an impact on the Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant project and vice versa. Thurrock Power therefore wishes to register as an interested party and reserves the right to make further submissions in due course."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Welch
"As a Kent resident I am very concerned at the amount of development of all kinds, and as a result of that, the amount of destruction of wildlife and nature that takes place. Wildlife is vital to all of us, and this has been proven throughout the last year where people have found solace in getting into nature. Our country is severely nature depleted and we should be doing all we can to protect what we already have and increase places for wildlife in the hope that nature can begin to recover. The Swanscombe peninsula supports a wide range of wildlife, in a number of habitats, which has been recognised by Natural England who have designated it as a SSSI. With this in mind I feel that it would be inappropriate to continue with proposal to develop the area for the London Resort. Please consider very carefully what would happen if the London Resort is allowed to go ahead...to destroy such an important site gives out all the wrong signals. The variety of wildlife from insects to birds is priceless, utterly priceless... We need more wildlife, which will benefit all of us and the environment, not more theme parks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Clifton
"Natural England, the Government's advisor, considers the peninsular to be of Special Scientific Interest, has set out it's reasons in detail, and embarked on public consultation. It's detailed study reveals that the peninsular comprises a very special habitat which affords a critical refuge for a variety of nationally important plants, birds and insects. The Government is committed to a green agenda which seeks to protect wildlife and to avoid activities that damage or disturb special habitats. The leisure development as currently proposed will damage this habitat and is therefore contrary to the Government's stated aims, and should be refused permission. The special value of this oasis of habitat is greatly enhanced by it's survival within the otherwise extensive and mostly cheerless urban development now present, and still spreading, across much of North West Kent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Rische
"As a local resident to [] I have great concern about the destruction and disturbing of wildlife and habitats if London Resorts goes ahead. I walk the marshes every day and see the changes of wildlife and fauna with the seasons. I have realised what a fantastic place of nature we have on our doorstep and especially during this lockdown have seen the many people enjoying the peace and quite of such a beautiful environment. It is quite obvious the amount of stress relief people get from walking the marshes, and how important these kind of places are to our mental health. I believe the destruction of Swanscombe Marshes would be an absolute disaster for wildlife. There are wonderful rare bird, invertebrate and amphibian species here which I believe will leave once construction starts and will be gone forever. Also living in an area with so much residential development it would be another place taken away for people to walk and enjoy the peace, quite and nature."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Exolum Storage Limited
"Exolum Storage Limited owns and operates a bulk liquid storage terminal at London Road, West Thurrock, Grays, Essex, RM17 5YZ. Exolum receives products (including hazardous products) into the terminal from vessels and needs to ensure that vessels have continuous and uninterrupted access to the jetties and are able to manoeuvre into and from the berths. Furthermore, Exolum holds various licences to operate the terminal and the applicant would need to ensure that Exolum is able to continue to carry out its activities without restriction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gerald Hallam
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife .Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2021/02/Swanscombe-SSSI-rationale-Feb-2021.pdf"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Golding
"We really need to enhance biodiversity if we as a species want a future on this planet, not deplete it, as the proposed theme park would do. Swanscombe Marshes is a unique area and precious area because of the range of wildlife it supports, particularly the huge number of invertebrates, some extremely rare. Preserving this biodiversity benefits us all, in maintaining the health of the ecosystem in which we all live - a benefit which far, far outweighs anything a theme park could offer. We owe it to our children and grand children not to destroy Swanscombe Marshes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Palmer
"In March 2021 Natural England enlarged the 7 hectare Bakers Hole SSSI, south of the River Thames, and designated a much larger area as Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI. This new 264 hectare SSSI comprises estuarine habitat and open mosaic habitat on previously developed land. The site includes chalk pits, free-draining grassland, scrub, wetlands, grazing marsh and saltmarsh - a wide range of habitats that has developed as a result of the site's complex human history. Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI is of special interest for its nationally important assemblages of invertebrates and breeding birds (including Marsh harrier, Bearded tit, Nightingale and Black redstart), populations of five species of red listed plants (including Man orchid) and geological features. It supports the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider Attulus distinguendus, which is known from only one other site in the UK. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. These features are described in detail in the report by Buglife, Kent Wildlife Trust and RSPB: Rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula (https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2021/02/Swanscombe-SSSI-rationale-Feb-2021.pdf). This was presented to Natural England in February 2021. Although the SSSI designation is still subject to consultation until the end of July 2021, there is a statutory duty for the site to be considered in planning applications. The London Resort, a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), based on the Swanscombe Peninsula and due to cover approximately 465 hectares, is currently under consideration. This ‘next generation’ theme park is the first ‘Business or Commercial Project’ to be accepted as an NSIP by the UK Government. Any information submitted on the wildlife or geological value of the area up to 11th March 2021 would have been based on a site largely free of SSSI designation. The recent notification of the 264 ha Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI changes this, therefore it is essential that the application for The London Resort is re-submitted. RSPB’s 2019 State of Nature report, using data from 50 conservation organisations, indicates that 15% of the 8,431 species assessed are at risk of extinction in Great Britain. The report Rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula points out that between 2007 and 2013, 51% of undeveloped Thames Estuary sites similar to the Swanscombe Peninsula were lost, damaged or under threat from development. This, together with future potential losses, represents a huge loss of biodiversity and increases the risk of extinctions. It is more important than ever that we protect our irreplaceable and nationally important SSSI network. There is only one Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and it is the wrong place for a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miranda Davies
"I think it is wrong to build a theme park at Swanacombe, because the site hosts several rare and critically endangered species (such as the jumping spider) which the theme park would threaten. The UK is the 189th most degraded country in the world in terms of biodiversity, and we cannot continue to imperil the few pockets of species-rich habitat we have left. It's hard to see how constructing a theme park on a site recently recommended for SSSI designation can be justified, let alone in a country with so little biodiversity left. In the long term, protecting nature (and all the ecosystem, mental health, and health services it provides) is far more valuable to our population than a theme park."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural England
"Please see attached"
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) has previously been consulted at the Scoping Stage of this development on the 16th July 2020. PHE was not consulted at the Section 42 stage of this application process. Therefore, we can confirm that we have registered an interest on the Planning Inspectorate Website. In addition, we have the following comments in light of not commenting at the Section 42 stage: Environmental and Public Health In the Main Statement Chapter 7 entitled Land use and socio-economic effects (Section 7.238), the Applicant has stated that a decommissioned cruise ship will be used to accommodate construction workers for 2 years located in Tilbury. The Environmental Statement (ES) does not state if the cruise ship will be powered by on shore connections or from its own engines. This is potentially a source of emissions to air and therefore we recommend clarification be sought on if and what impacts this cruise liner may have on local air quality. Human Health and Wellbeing This section of PHE’s response, identifies the wider determinants of health and wellbeing we expect the ES to address and to demonstrate whether they are likely to give rise to significant effects. PHE has focused its approach on scoping determinants of health and wellbeing under four themes, which have been derived from an analysis of the wider determinants of health mentioned in the National Policy Statements. The four themes are: • Access • Traffic and Transport • Socioeconomic • Land Use Having considered the submitted ES PHE wish to make the following specific comments and recommendations: Methodology Monitoring The ES states that monitoring measures may be required, for example the update of local accommodation by construction workers. It is acknowledged that the need for and type of monitoring will still evolve but a rational, robust and transparent monitoring strategy is required within the ES. The monitoring strategy will be a key asset to engagement with the local community and local stakeholders, and on which to base future decisions. The scale and nature of the scheme is such that local communities will be sensitive to construction and operational impacts, where the planned mitigation may not be successful or there may be unforeseen impacts that will need to be addressed. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommend the final stage of a health impact assessment involves monitoring to see if the predictions made during the appraisal were accurate, and to see if the health, or health promoting behaviours, of the community have changed. Recommendations PHE expects an assessment to include consideration of the need for monitoring, particularly in relation to community impact. The ES should clearly state the principles on which the monitoring strategy has been established, including monitoring in response to unforeseen impacts or effects. It may be appropriate to undertake monitoring where: • Critical assumptions have been made in the absence of supporting evidence or data • There is uncertainty about whether significant negative effects are likely to occur, and it would be appropriate to include planned monitoring measures to track their presence, scale and nature. • There is uncertainty about the potential success of mitigation measures • It is necessary to track the nature of the impact or effect and provide useful and timely feedback that would allow action to be taken should negative effects occur The monitoring strategy could be published as a separate document to ensure a transparent, co-ordinated and consistent approach. The monitoring strategy to set out: • Monitoring methodologies • Data sources • Assessment methods • Publication methodology • Reporting frequency • Temporal and geographic scope The monitoring could include: • Noise complaints • Feedback / complaints from local residents / communities • Impact from demand on local services • Impact from demand on local housing provision The monitoring strategy should form part of the embedded mitigation measures within the Development Consent Order and form part of the reporting mechanisms to local communities and local agencies. The monitoring strategy should be agreed with the local authority Director of Public Health, Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and Integrated Care System (ICS). Safe, suitable and stable homes The report identifies the requirement for permanent land take in order to achieve the construction and operational phase. Loss of homes will attract compensation, with existing schemes directed to property occupiers, but the compensation code does not clearly identify the rights for tenants. The compensation code also identifies potential rights to compensation for noise and disturbance. Compensation code is not clear on the rights to compensation for tenants of domestic property, who can often be considered vulnerable and not have the capability or capacity to access the compensation procedure. The ES identifies that a proportion of the accommodation demand required by non-home-based workers will be met from the provision of a caravan site, cruise liner and an element of local accommodation. No details are provided for the caravan site facilities or the standards to which the liner will operate. The ES proposes to establish an accommodation hub to link workers to local housing provision. The safety and suitability of this accommodation may be unregulated creating risk to the safety and welfare of both the non-home-based workers and occupiers. Recommendation The ES identifies the potential for occupiers of housing to rent space within their accommodation outside of the formal private rented sector to non-home-based workers. The safety and suitability of this accommodation will largely be unregulated creating risk to the safety and welfare of both the non-home-based workers and occupiers. The ES should address how this may be mitigated and may form part of the Construction Workforce Accommodation Strategy. The ES does not provide any details regarding the standards of facilities, management systems or location for the caravan site, leading to the potential for poor sanitation and safety concerns such as fire. Information regarding the services, facilities, location and management of the caravan site should be established. Detailed plans can be established later. The ES does not address health risks associated with the operation of the cruise liner. The ES should confirm that it will comply with any requirements under ship sanitation regulations and have in place infection prevention and control measures for outbreaks of infectious diseases. Recreational land and open space The ES identifies the areas of recreational and open space required for the DCO and a commitment to improve the quality and accessibility of the remaining publicly accessible land. The impact of the DCO has implications for the changes to the perceptual qualities (including tranquillity) of a recreational resource as a direct result of the DCO Project (as a result of increased noise levels and the significant visual impacts). The likely impact of changes to noise levels on the recreational amenity of these individual resources as a result of the DCO Project cannot be fully understood until the impact on tranquillity has been assessed. The ES identifies the temporary and permanent closure of several Public Rights of Way (PRoW) as a result of the construction and operational phases. This will result in the loss of access to open space in addition to the impacts from loss of tranquillity and visual impacts during the course of the construction phase. Although mitigation is in place for the operation phase, the construction phase will have a significant impact on the local community. This will have a significant impact during the short term and the ES does not offer any alternative options or mitigation. Recommendations Additional details are required in relation to an assessment of noise impacts on tranquillity for users of the public open space. The ES should consider the phasing of mitigation measures to minimise the effects from visual impacts and impact on tranquillity. Effective phasing could create accessible better quality provision to green and blue space as set out in the landscape strategy. In addition, early planting of mature natural screening as proposed in the landscape strategy will assist in minimising visual impacts. Greater clarity on the early phasing of these mitigation measures is required and greater detail on the likely visual appearance of the scheme from the PRoW. Healthy food environment PHE welcomes the intention to provide healthy food options at catering outlets for visitors and staff. The staff accommodation strategy outlines the general provision for the flats, which will share living and kitchen facilities. The kitchen facilities should have adequate space and facilities to enable the production of fresh and healthy food options. Being able to store, prepare and cook a range of foods, including perishable food (such as fruit, vegetables and other staples including potatoes, tubers etc) enables people to have a healthy, balanced diet, which plays a significant role in avoiding a large number of preventable illnesses. Recommendation We recommend aligning the requirements relating to kitchen and dining facilities with those that enable people to meet their needs for a healthy, balanced and affordable diet. This might include storage space for food, including a fridge freezer, a cooker (or space for it), sockets for cooking appliances, and surfaces for food preparation. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Andrews
"I urge you to protect this rare and beautiful marsh for today and future generations. It supports: 1. Over 250 invertebrate species, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. 2. Breeding grounds of 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 3. Nightingales!!! Please stop their decline. 4. 13 rare and red listed plants. If we're trying to re wild the UK and restore habitats, absorb CO2 and ensure places for kids to learn about the importance of wild places why destroy this important and rich habitat. Please stop this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen John Blackburn
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is hugely important for England's Fauna and Flora and should be protected in line with Natural England's recommendation to make it a SSSI. It is difficult to comprehend why it is thought that another theme park could be of national importance when the last 12 months have taught most of us that the natural environment is very important to people's mental and physical health and that the relentless pressure of human development on our natural environment must change. This site has very important habitats that support many important wildlife species, which in my opinion need to be given the top level of protection."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Grime
"Please don’t destroy this SSSI. we desperately need insect life in this country, if we are to have any hope of survival. With the farmers and fishermen intent on destroying the life in our environment, Swanscombe is needed as an insect habitat more than ever"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Turvey
"The loss of a biodiverse area would be a tragedy and for what, a Disney type play area that could be built elsewhere - even nearby but please not on this most important natural area. The birds in particular- rare and endangered. Insects too - invertebrates. And constantly we are being told to save these areas as they are precious. messing with nature has already caused us a massive problem just now. Crossness Nature Reserve, not that far away is regularly adversely affected - even a new waste to power plant - gvt. is aware of the high pollution these Plants cause but that doesn't seem to deter applications going through. Think long term in this case. This is a time that the government wants the greening of areas. more space for Nature and this also, to help all with our mental health. Please don't ignore the fact that the area is a SSSI AND a wetlands in particular, which can never be replicated or recovered. over and above this - the habitat is very varied built up over many years - don't tear it down. if this planning application is allowed - it will disappear overnight and then river boats and occupants entering via the river, will add to the mix , exhausting any likelihood that some or any of this unique habitat could survive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Leach
"It has been brought to my attention that the area that is due to be developed is extremely valuable in terms of biodiversity. This area is already a site of special scientific interest with a wonderful rare spider species making it it's home. I am astonished and horrified to know it could be ripped up and built upon. As you are aware, the environment in the UK is already under threat from so many human impacts, one of the biggest threats is building development. I urge you to consider our wildlife and future generations that will desperately need these green wild spaces in years to come and rely on them for stress relief and mental enrichment. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martha Harwood
"The plan to develop on Swanscombe marshes is nonsensical. Firstly, London is already a highly developed area, and I fail to see how further development will improve the economic or touristic prospects of the areas, especially where business brought by the London Resort will be diverting from the local businesses in the area. Secondly, it has been claimed that the area is an "empty brownfield site." I would like to counter this by highlighting the environmental importance of this area, which is now a Site of Special Scientific Interest. It provides valuable and varied habitat for rare birds, insects and plants, on top of reptiles and mammals. In a world that is ever more threatened by climate change and environmental destruction, it is ridiculous to destroy an area that supports biodiversity. I am sure that I am not alone in having found both physical and mental space in nature, especially where lockdown has limited our travel. Please consider this: once the habitat is destroyed there is no hope of regaining it, or any of the species that once lived there. Yes, there are other green spaces in London and the surrounding area that provide habitats, but this does not mean we have the right to destroy such a rich and unique habitat. Furthermore, my fear is that developing Swanscombe would set a precedent that paves the way for further projects that undermine the importance of the natural world and prioritise economic growth over the future of our planet. None of this is to say that I am entirely against development in the UK, but my question is, why Swanscombe? It fails to make sense economically and enviromentally. Do not misunderstand me, the UK needs development to help boost its economy, especially in the post-COVID world, but why choose to build in area where it would be damaging to the natural world and providing minimal financial benenfit?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
R J Kane
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is home to a remarkable mix of habitat of high value to wildlife – these include grasslands, coastal habitats, brownfield features, scrub and intricate wetlands. Known as Swanscombe Marshes, this urban wilderness is home to thousands of species, including over 250 invertebrate species which are rare or under threat. As well as abundant bees, butterflies and beetles, Swanscombe Marshes is one of just two places in the UK where you can find the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus). It is home to Nightingales, Cuckoos, Marsh harriers and a thriving population of Common lizards, thanks to its array of rich habitats. Swanscombe Marshes is not just important for wildlife. The site has been enjoyed by local people for years for walking, bird watching, angling and escaping the hustle and bustle of North Kent. But all of this is now threatened by the proposed London Resort theme park. Hyped as the ‘UK’s Disneyland’, much of the unique habitat of Swanscombe Marshes would be destroyed and concreted. The wildlife riches of the site simply will not survive this development. At a time when the value of wildlife and open spaces is being appreciated more than ever and amid a biodiversity crisis, I urge the Secretary of State to reject this unnecessary and ill thought out application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Wilson
"Swanscombe Peninsular, and the diverse habitats which the area comprises, have literally been my world for 12 months. It’s landscape and inhabitants have become a vital part of my life and my wellbeing. The peninsular provides much needed open space in an area slowly being destroyed by over-development; a place to run - away from busy, congested, polluted busy roads; a place to walk and discover new flora and fauna on pretty much every visit (yesterday’s example being a female partridge); ultimately, a place to breathe. With such a unique blend of habitats, and being home to a high density of rare species, this area holds more value as a nature reserve than as a theme park which could be made to work financially. Look at the transformation of RSPB Old Moor in Yorkshire as an example of what a wildlife destination this area could become. There is huge potential for this site, not for the short-term financial gains of a theme park but for the promotion of a nationally important wildlife site and for the well-being of those local residents who hope to treasure it long after the pandemic ends."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Metcalfe
"The area is now a Site of Special Scientific Interest and as such should receive the full weight of protection. The reason so much wildlife is rare is because it has no where to live. Please give the tiny animals on this site the chance of survival. Thanks Steve Metcalfe"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Utton
"I wish to register my objection to the building of the London Resort Theme park on the Swanscombe peninsular. Swanscombe marsh is a green oasis in a desert of urbanisation. Its wild nature is a lifeline for many species of invertebrates, birds, reptiles, bats, mammals - many of conservation concern. Ornithologically it provides excellent and scarce breeding habitat for a whole range of birds. Warblers such as Whitethroat, Reed, Sedge, Grasshopper and resident Cetti's Warbler for example. Although reduced in numbers Nightingale still breed, as does Cuckoo, and a pair of Ravens bred successfully for 6 years (2013-2018) and still frequent the area. Marsh Harrier and Bearded Tit also breed in some or most years. In addition, a wide variety of resident birds breed or use the marsh for feeding ranging from wildfowl, grebes, herons and egrets, water rail, waders, raptors Stonechat, Black Redstart and many other passerine species. Many passage migrants use the area as a stopover - for example I recorded Stone Curlew one year, Garganey in another as well as sandpipers, Whinchat and Wheatear. Recently, on 9/3/21 I recorded a Short eared Owl and Dartford warbler feeding there and were probably wintering. I live in nearby Gravesend and have visited the marsh for around 40 years, and have regularly counted the number of bird species seen on 1st or 2nd January, and this has ranged from 48 to 63 in the last 11 years (average 54) which gives an indication of the richness of the area for wildlife, and we must not lose these valuable sites. The marsh is used by residents of nearby housing developments for recreation and exercising and I have noticed how this has increased dramatically since the pandemic. It is clearly valued and appreciated and it would be a great disservice to destroy this. Providing a few areas of manicured grass and trees within the London Resort area will not compensate for the loss of the special habitat currently available and most species will simply be lost, leaving a few pigeons and Magpies. Unfortunately large numbers of trees have recently been felled around the edge of the marsh either side of Tiltman Avenue- presumably for housing, as well as the enormous number of houses being built in the general area (e.g. Eastern quarry/Ebbsfleet Garden City), Swanscombe Castle Hill) and massive road works associated with this at Bean interchange with the A2 which is already a very heavily used road and the Resort would only exacerbate the problem. I understand the need for more housing but this area has had an incredible increase in recent times and this is ongoing. Taking away this remaining and irreplaceable green area for a massive (and non essential) theme park seems totally inappropriate and I sincerely hope it will be rejected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Cheeseright
"Please reject this planning application for a theme park as it will destroy a remarkable and valued wildlife haven which is one of the last remnants of marshes near London. Swanscombe Peninsula has been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest because it is a mix of environments of high value to wildlife including grasslands, coastal habitats, scrub and wetlands. It is home to thousands of species of invertebrates, insects, spiders, birds, reptiles and mammals. Swanscombe Marshes are also important to people who enjoy the area for walking, birdwatching, angling and getting much-needed fresh air, peace and contact with nature. I am passionate about rivers and their linked habitats, volunteering for Thames 21 and local groups in south-east London. We are lucky to have areas like Swanscombe Peninsula which have survived the expansion of London. We must protect them - it would be folly to destroy them, especially as the benefits of wildlife and open spaces are being appreciated more than ever amid a biodiversity crisis No development is worth losing a treasure such as this - please save Swanscombe Marshes!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Frances Presland
"I am most concerned that this area is under threat from development as a theme park. This area is a rare habitat type, being a mixture of wetlands, grassland and scrub, the nature of which means that it supports a large variety of wildlife. This includes over 200 invertebrates, many of which are declining and includes a critically endangered spider and several bee species that are nationally endangered. This site is so valuable that it is being proposed as an SSI by Natural England. There have been many, many instances where similar sites have been developed regardless. It is time for the hand wringing at the rapid decline of our wildlife to stop and for real action to be taken to protect Britain's remaining wildlife habitats. Protecting this site from development would be a good place to start."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Rische
"(Redacted) I walk on the marshes every day. The abundance of wildlife and the changing seasons are amazing. This area offers peace and tranquillity for so many people and is so needed for our mental health. This area cannot survive if this proposal goes ahead. We do not want constant noise we need peace and quiet. If construction starts the wildlife will be disturbed and frightened away. This is unacceptable these creatures have colonised this area and they must not be made to suffer with construction noises let alone the awful amount of light pollution and disturbances. And humans too. We need the quiet and the dark and and this natural environment. This area has become famous and local residents and those further afield share their photos and there comments on social media a lifeline for lonely and stressed people to actually breathe. The wildfowl are currently pairing up and nest building it’s so exciting we eagerly await the first chick. The Heronry is noisy , the marshes are alive , soon the frogs will come with their strange sounds at dusk they bring the snakes in summer the trees are blossoming. We have seen unusual winter visitors including Teal and Gadwell it’s a beautiful place. We have met new friends by walking here and enjoying the wildlife we keep it clean by litter picking we watch wonderful sunrises and sunsets with the Geese flying in and out. You cannot protect this area and all it brings by polluting it with machinery noise fumes lights and destruction. Please leave this natural area to nature and the people who need it and live here. It is extremely stressful worrying about the proposed blight on our lives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joe Beale
"The London Resort plan must not be permitted. It will seriously damage a wonderful SSSI and public resource rich in wildlife. Much of this wildlife has already been destroyed elsewhere, which makes it all the more urgent to protect Swanscombe from inappropriate development such as a theme park. Swanscombe could become the south of the river equivalent of the RSPB's Rainham Marshes if we plan thoughtfully for the future. Here is a unique opportunity to protect biodiversity in an era of biodiversity crisis - especially with the UK being one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Spectacular and often threatened species such as Marsh Harriers, Bearded Reedlings, Lapwings, Ravens and Nightingales all live here, not to mention scarce invertebrates such as a spider found in only two UK locations and rare Man Orchids. These are national treasures and we should not even be thinking about intentionally destroying the wildlife of this site. A theme park, with its development, noise, access roads and light pollution can surely be sited in a more appropriate location. Whatever the developers say, the unique mix of niches that provide home to such an astonishing range of biodiversity can not easily be replicated or mitigated. In a year when the UK is hosting the Climate Change Conference, we need to set a good example by not destroying our wildlife for a business enterprise that could go elsewhere. For us, for wildlife, for future generations and for the reputation of this country, please reject the London Resort scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Blake
"I wish to register as an Interested Party as I live near to an area that would be negatively impacted by the London Resort if it goes ahead. I have concerns over the negative impacts it would have to the environment, roads/congestion. I do not believe that the consultation has been adequate especially for those of us north of the river. The parking facility was only recently added, and we were lucky to learn of that addition ourselves, as London Resort didn't promote the fact or the consultation to us. During that consultation London Resort didn't provide adequate information on the predicted impacts to the area I live, even when I emailed and questioned them. They mentioned negative impacts from traffic in various areas, the village where I live being one of them, but no explanation as to why or how it would be negatively impacted. I am hoping the DCO documentation will provide further detail, and/or that we can quiz London Resort on this kind of thing during Examination to ensure that our concerns are properly considered and addressed. Thanks My contact details shared above are private and not to be shared or published thanks"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lloyd Tilney
"Since 2015, we have been operating our business within Unit 6 at Swanscombe Business Centre. The primary reason for leasing the premises was that it offered very good value for money that could not be found anywhere else in the surrounding areas. We have been steadily building a community based Health & Wellbeing Business, therefore moving from this Location would be extremely disadvantageous and may not allow us to continue supporting the clients that depend on us. We completely refurbished the premises including new flooring, walls, kitchenette etc at considerable costs in order to create a professional and inviting environment. The location is situated near to junctions at Ebbsfleet or Bean on the A2 making it easy to travel by car. We have the necessary parking available and it is also conveniently located and well positioned near Swanscombe National Rail station and opposite bus routes from surrounding Towns & Rail stations including Ebbsfleet International. Since the threat of forced relocation, we have looked extensively for alternative premises. The Business is a small operation and suitable units for relocation in the local area simply don’t exist. The Business needs to operate in the local area as it is reliant on the clients that have contributed to the growth of the Business. We would ask you to consider that not all Businesses are scalable to meet the overheads of the alternative Business premises that are available. This development poses a very serious risk to our Business survival, one we have worked so hard to build within this catchment area. The impact of this resort poses great financial concerns to my Business, my family, my livelihood and also the wellbeing of my clients as moving the Business out of the local area would essentially mean rebuilding and restarting the reputation that has been built over the last 6 years and this is not something that can be easily compensated against."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Harding
"Swanscombe Marshes And Nature Reserve in Kent are threatened by a plan to build an amusement park. On the grounds of the loss of biodiversity, disturbance to wildlife. Birds and insects ,terrible loss of habitats and the marshes themselves as flood protection and flood plain and carbon capture role and water table these must be protected. The govt are supposed to care about climate change. If the planning dept cares, the inspectorate should prevent the propiosed amusement park on all these grounds"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr J Hosking
"Swanscombe supports nationally important Open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. It is a wholly inappropriate site for a theme park. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest and we must comprehensively protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost or damaged in any way. All of the information submitted to date is based on a site free of any designation. The recent notification of the site as a SSSI changes the baseline considerably and it is essential that the application be re-submitted. Although the SSSI is now subject to consultation, there is a statutory duty for it to be considered as a SSSI until the end of this current process in July 2021. The site supports a nationally important assemblage of invertebrates, including 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. The site’s diverse breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. The site also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. I am extremely concerned that wildlife across England is in rapid and drastic decline. It is therefore more important than ever to protect and greatly expand our SSSI network and National Nature Reserves. The Swanscombe Peninsula is clearly the wrong place for any theme park and we must value our precious wildlife far more than we do a theme park for the survival of our ecosystems and human-utilised environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Muriel Dorothy Blake
"I live in [] and was not officially notified about the consultation regarding the London Resort. Considering the whole of Thurrock will be hugely impacted by this development, as it is proposed to have a ferry crossing between Tilbury and the London Resort I would have expected every household in Thurrock would have been made aware of this consultation. I did find out about the consultation and filled it in and was amazed to find some of the content included parts of Thurrock which were not notified. Orsett was not included in the consultation yet Baker Street, High Road and Rectory Road in Orsett had been marked as part of the highway traffic model extent. According to the London Resort these links were included due to the potential changes in traffic flows along the A13 which could impact upon local communities within the vicinity, so why were we not notified of the consultation? One map in the consultation showed the A13 wrongly marked as the A1089 from the end of Baker Street to Stanford roundabout, which was very worrying. In the "Limitations and uncertainties" section it stated that "At this time, the highway impacts of the proposals north of the river are unknown." That does not give me any confidence that our traffic flows have not been suitably assessed to know just how much the London Resort traffic will impact on our day to day lives. We already have extremely high levels of pollution from traffic moving to and from Tilbury Ports 1 and 2, DP World at Corringham, Amazon and other vast warehouses at Tilbury and at Lakeside, Proctor & Gamble in Purfleet along with so many other commercial establishments, so the traffic to and from Tilbury Park and Glide to the London Resort will only add to our suffering from pollution and congestion all over the borough of Thurrock. Thank you for your time and attention."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Thames Crossing Action Group
"I would like to register as an Interested Party as Chair of the Thames Crossing Action Group. We represent thousands of people who are strongly opposed to the proposed Lower Thames Crossing(LTC). Our interest in the London Resort project relates to serious concerns we have in the crossover between this project and the proposed LTC and the negative impacts it would inflict upon roads, congestion, pollution, and the environment on both sides of the River Thames. We have concerns that the London Resort would create yet more traffic in areas that are already heavily congested and have illegally high air pollution. We do not believe that London Resort have properly considered, nor adequately consulted on, these negative impacts to the existing road network, and also taking the proposed LTC into account. Even if the LTC goes ahead Highways England's (HE) own data shows that the Dartford Crossing will remain over capacity. HE are also not considering how traffic would migrate between the two crossings when there are incidents, if LTC goes ahead, and that there are not adequate connections. We are concerned that the extra traffic that the London Resort would generate on top of these issues that the LTC would create would create serious congestion, chaos, and pollution throughout the whole area. In addition we do not feel that London Resort has given proper consideration to the recent addition of their parking facility north of the river. The proposed facility is at the southern end of the A1089 (a road they failed to correctly identify in their last consultation). If the LTC goes ahead changes would be made to the way the A1089 connects to the existing road network, and access from the LTC to the A1089 would involve a long diversion. Traffic would need to leave the LTC eastbound on the A13, down to the Stanford Junction and up around the already busy traffic lighted roundabout (alongside DPWorld and other traffic), then back westbound on the A13 to the new joint LTC/A1089 south junction. This means that any traffic trying to access the London Resort parking in Tilbury would need to take this detour, adding more traffic to local roads. There are many issues in connection to the relationship between the proposed London Resort and Lower Thames Crossing that we feel need to be given full and proper consideration. This is why we wish to register as an Interested Party, so that we can continue to comment and provide evidence of our concerns during the DCO process please. Should you need any further info or clarification please don't hesitate to contact us. Thanks. Any contact details shared above are strictly private and not to be shared/published thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Adam Bird
"I am writing to support the proposed plans and to.act as an advocate for the project and to support the goals of trying to provide economic benefits, infrastructure benefits to the area as well as a place to spend time with my family as they grow up."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Shore
"I am against the proposal for a theme park on this site. When so much is known about climate change and biodiversity loss in the UK this site which is being recommended by Natural England to be a SSSI should be treasured. This area is so important for wildlife, rare species both flora and fauna including the critically endangered jumping spider. Swanscombe Marshes must remain just that. This is completely the wrong place to build a theme park!"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Butterfly Conservation
"Butterfly Conservation wishes to become an Interested Party to take part in the examination of the application for the London Resort for the following reasons: 1. We believe the NSIP application for the theme park must be reviewed in the light of the recognition by Natural England of the Swanscombe Peninsula area as a proposed Site of Special Scientific Interest 2. The recognition of the site as brownfield because of previous development does not in itself make the site any less valuable for its wildlife interests. The site has been substantially reclaimed by natural processes. In doing so this has led to the establishment of an area with an especially rich assemblage of wildlife. Natural England has recognised that the open mosaic habitat within the site supports an exceptional range of wildlife in the coastal habitats including grasslands, scrub and wetlands 3. Butterfly Conservation wishes the area to be retained and managed for its wildlife interests in line with the proposed SSSI designation 4. Our interests relate to, but not exclusively, the range of Lepidoptera (butterflies and moths) found at the site. We are particularly interested in the presence of the Wall butterfly, Chalk Carpet moth, and the micro-moth Pammene agnotana 5. The Wall is widely distributed in England but rarely occurs in large numbers. Over the last decade it has declined in distribution substantially in many inland areas of central England. Populations remain in coastal areas, including along the south shore of the Thames estuary, where brownfield land contributes to its presence 6. Chalk Carpet moth occurs on unimproved calcareous grassland, cliffs and quarries and in other places where there is sparse vegetation and an abundance of bare ground. The moth has been observed to seek out patches of bare ground basking and roosting. This moth has undergone a significant reduction in its distribution since 1990 7. Pammene agnotana is a rare moth confined to a few areas of southern and south-east England, and East Anglia. The moth is associated with isolated and old Hawthorn trees, and ancient hedgerows 8. It is our view that the Swanscombe Peninsula is not an appropriate place for the development of a theme park and would irretrievably lead to damage of the wildlife interests that the site holds, including for the moths and butterflies described"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Hodges
"Swanscombe peninsula is a special place, containing a unique mixture of rare wildlife and plants. A theme park is the opposite, a desecration of our environment in favour of short term gain for those individuals involved. We cannot continue to destroy these special places whilst also acknowledging the desperate need to preserve diversity and habitat. Future generations will not thank us for yet another theme park where once nature thrived. This project is not of our time, it represents the ideology of a previous generation who did not understand the need to act urgently to save our environment. Show some leadership."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathlyn Thomas
"As a local resident, I would like to understand the infrastructure that will be in place to meet the expected increase in demand."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Shepherd
"Too many animal habitats destroyed. Too much CO2 produced. Too costly. Too much bad air quality produced in an area that already has air quality below international standards. Lot more people working from home, a trend that is likely to continue hence less people commuting and therefore this project is not wanted or needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phantom Tinting
"I am a Director of Phantom Tinting. We occupy Unit 9 Swanscombe Business Centre, DA10 0LH under a leasehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business specialises in window film application but also offer various other automotive related services. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain our customers. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ralph Todd
"I am registering my objection to the proposed London Resort Theme Park on the Swanscombe Peninsular from the standpoint of a passionate wildlife enthusiast who has spent much of my life (over 45 years) volunteering to help protect the wildlife of our County. Through the medium of talks and leading walks I have also tried to enthuse others in the hope they will be inspired to protect what remains of our much under threat natural world. I have enjoyed many visits to Swanscombe marshes over the years as it holds a vast variety of wildlife, not just the birds that we can readily see (15 red-listed of Conservation Concern) but also a wide variety of invertebrates (250 species of conservation concern), plants (13 nationally scarce vascular plants) many of these totally dependent on the mixed and open mosaic habitats. So important is the site for wildlife it has recently been notified as a SSSI. At a time when, Covid aside, the news agenda was filling up with the negative effects of climate change and the catastrophic loss of species in the UK (as well as worldwide) I find it unbelievable that this proposal has been allowed to see the light of day. Very large sums of money (much of it tax payers money) and resources are being invested by NGO’s/Agencies in nearby sites. The RSPB are managing nearby sites – Shorne/Cliffe Marshes, South Essex Marshes and Rainham Marshes, the PLA are investing in West Thurrock Marshes (literally across the river from Swanscombe Peninsular), Essex Wildlife Trust the Thurrock Thameside Nature Discovery Park all in an attempt to alleviate some of the major losses to habitats and species caused by human interventions. Some of those interventions might be considered unavoidable (housing, infrastructure) but to see such an important wildlife site, one that should be interconnected with those other remaining Thames marshes wildlife havens destroyed for a profit making theme park is an absolute disgrace. The Lawton Report, 2010, Making Space for Nature urged “more, bigger, better”, the Swanscombe Peninsular is an integral part of the Thames Marshes jigsaw. The Swanscombe Peninsular is just not the right place for a theme park; it flies in the face of the Lawton recommendations. Please don’t be fooled by the Developers/Applicants attempts to persuade you that Biodiversity Net Gain and their proposals for “improvement” are the answer, centuries, decades of evolution within the soils that harbour the invertebrates that enable to plant growth and the birds and other wildlife that thrive on the Peninsular just cannot be replaced by the ideology of ecologists who really don’t know the site as well as those who have seen fit to designate it as an SSSI. Please do not allow this application to be granted."
Non-Statutory Organisations
DP World London Gateway
"This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of London Gateway Port Limited, LG Park Freehold Limited and LG Park Leasehold Limited (hereafter collectively referred to as DP World London Gateway (DPWLG)). Background Context DPWLG is the developer and operator of London Gateway (LG), which comprises the London Gateway Port (the Port) and London Gateway Logistics Park (the Park), located on the northern banks of the Thames Estuary in Stanford-le-Hope, Essex. LG provides a tri-modal transport interchange of national significance and forms part of the Thames Freeport, awarded Freeport status within the Chancellors Budget Statement of 3rd March 2021. With first operational use taking place in November 2013, the Port currently comprises three operational berths, whilst the Park currently provides 161,892sq.m of operational floorspace in eight buildings, with two further buildings currently under construction. The Port and Park are consented pursuant to the London Gateway Port Harbour Empowerment Order (HEO) which was made by the Secretary of State for Transport on the 2nd May 2008 and the London Gateway Logistics Park Local Development Order (LDO), made by Thurrock Council on the 7th November 2013 respectively. Once fully developed the Port will comprise six shipping berths providing additional deep sea shipping and container handling facilities with an annual throughput of 3.5 million TEU (twenty foot equivalent units). The adjacent Park will provide up to approximately 830,000sq.m of commercial floorspace. Policy Context As discussed within the National Policy Statement for Ports (NPSP) dated January 2012, ports such as London Gateway Port comprise an “an essential element in ensuring sustainable growth in the UK economy” (Paragraph 3.1.4). The NPSP also makes reference to “the need for unimpeded access” (Paragraph 1.1.2). DPWLG contend that the Ports NPS forms a material planning consideration in determining the Development Consent Order for the proposed development and that significant weight should be given to matters that have the potential to detrimentally impact upon access to LG. Material Issues The proposed Ferry Terminal and associated vehicle parking facility in Tilbury (defined in the TA as the ‘Essex Project’) has the potential to result in significant detrimental impact on highway routes critical to the operation of LG. Should the development proceed in isolation of other proposed schemes, such concerns relate predominantly to the operation of the M25/A13 grade separated roundabout junction (M25 Junction 30) and A13 links west of the A1089. Should however the development proceed in combination with the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) we believe that significant detrimental impacts will result at the A13/A1014 junction (Manorway Interchange) and links of the A13 between the A1014 and A1089. In this regard we highlight that Manorway Interchange and the A1014 form the sole access route to LG for freight traffic (other more local roads all being subject to vehicle weight restrictions and unsuitable for freight traffic). Having reviewed the Applicant’s Transport Assessment (TA) (Document Reference APP-093), DPWLG are of the view that the potential impacts described above are not sufficiently assessed or mitigated, with peak traffic flows rates on the related parts of the network significantly understated. In particular, we note that, notwithstanding DPWLG’s response to the Applicants Statutory Consultation (letter dated 6th August 2020), LG is not recognised as Committed Development of relevance to traffic impacts. As a result, Manorway Interchange and links of the A13 east of the A1089 are not included within the study area and are not afforded due consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Deborah Sazer
"We have allowed the destruction of important wildlife sites for so long, that it is vital to protect any remaining habitat. Wildlife conservation has always been far down the agenda, and financial gain has always been top. But the British public are becoming more and more concerned about the huge ongoing loss of species and habitats. Swanscombe Peninsula has now been designated as an SSSI, which means it is one of the most important sites in the UK. This is in part because of its huge range of invertebrates of conservation concern - again, invertebrates are rarely prioritised and yet they play a key role in all of our ecosystems. Likewise the 27 highly endangered bird species and 13 nationally scarce plants. There is no way that this planning application for a theme park should be considered of anything like as great value as the current rich array of habitats and species. It is unlikely that the destruction of, say, an historically important building would be allowed in order to replaced by a theme park. The habitats and species of Swanscombe Marshes play a vital part in maintaining our ecosystem services in the face of a climate emergency. Now is the worst time to over-ride SSSI protection and destroy a site which is enormously valuable for wildlife and for the people that live in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Hall
"I feel strongly that this area should not be developed due to the benefits it gives to wildlife, particularly birds of prey which are already suffering a lot of persecution in our country. As a parent of 2 young people hoping to go into employment within the conservation sector I also feel it is especially important to preserve these areas not just for wildlife but also the physical and mental health benefits they bring to people and for the future job opportunities they can offer."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline Gowers
"I am objecting to the planning as I am a keen bird watcher and love to see the marsh harrier and all the natural wild life in the area . I am concerned for the birds and wild life of this area is no longer here as where will the animals go ? It is a perfect place to take children to teach them about nature please save this for their future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Merridith Sharp
"This entertainment park is so close to Thorpe Park and Chessington, and for the even more desperate, Ebbsfleet is just down the road so a trip to Disney for a weekend cant be knocked out. So why do we need another? this will bring travel issues for months upon months, when it is being built and then all the additional traffic once it is up and running. The noise and light pollution is not needed and unnecessary. The park will be absorbing the Swanscombe Marches which is home to such vibrant wildlife. And furthermore, when this actually goes ahead which i severely hope it doesn't. The traffic will lead to the air pollution increasing directly affecting those in the immediate area with health conditions such as asthma."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Atkins
"As an animal lover, which includes all of our wildlife, and one that appreciates our countryside, I am sad and disappointed at the way our countryside has degraded over my lifetime of 76 years. I understand that government policy is, thankfully, now leaning towards a green future in order to improve biodiversity and to endeavour to avoid climate change to the point of disaster. Therefore, any and all development plans should be scrutinised most carefully. In this particular instance, Swanscombe marshes are already a most diverse area with varying habitats - just the kind of place we need to achieve our goal. Why it is under discussion to destroy it, is beyond comprehension. It is the kind of place that should be afforded maximum protection with no chance of it being ridden roughshod over. This area should be an SSSI - there have been recommendations for it to be so. If it were down to me, I say "No" to development. There are plenty of theme parks elsewhere in the country already."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Catchpole
"The residents of Grays Riverside (with Argent Street in the 2nd line of their address) have not been contacted even in the 5th consultation. Most people in Grays will not even know where Swanscombe Penninsula is, so mention of London Resort won’t mean anything to them. The properties in Grays Riverside are less than 250m from the park (as the crow flies) but have NOT been consulted. Major theme parks have car parks that are significantly deeper than this distance. IMO - the location, in such a built-up area, is totally inappropriate for a 12 million visit park. Tilbury (Grays) area is a working river with lots of large river traffic. To introduce more Clippers that the Pool of London has is a recipe for a disaster. 50 movements between Essex and Kent in a 2 hour period will make Fiddlers Reach to Tilbury Dock one of the busiest in the world. The river offers no soundproofing so this part of Essex will be battered 16 hours a day 365 days a year. Hoping they will not have nightly fireworks. Please note I have not mentioned the effect on the already chaotic roads or the compound effect of the LTC or the 50% more housing to be built in Thurrock."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Healey
"The area is a unique mosaic of habitats making it so valuable in biodiversity to be recommended by Natural England to be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The area provides critical protection for 15 red-listed breeding Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 breeding bird species of Principal Importance. Distinguished Jumping Spider -only found in two sites in the UK - and over 250 invertebrates are found there. Once this area has been disturbed there is no way that man can create a similar habitat structure for these species. It is the only natural outside area that many local people have to enjoy - something which has been vitally important to them and their health in the last year and will continue to be so. The local businesses provide jobs for local people, and if they have to move those jobs will go. Those jobs cannot be replaced by the proposed development. Increased road usage will make air quality and local traffic worse in an area already known to have one of the worst air quality and traffic congestion issues in the United Kingdom."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Hatton
"This is a significant open 'green-area' for both recreation and the enjoyment of wildlife. Also, how will the road system cope?, and it can only cause more air pollution in an area already badly affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alice Harman
"It's a sad truth that while most people don't set out to hurt animals, to destroy natural beauty and to leave kids with a world full of concrete, pollution and rubbish rather than trees, bees and birdsong, that's exactly what ends up happening when those with the power to do so don't stop developments like this one. Nature can't speak for itself, and the kids whose future world our decisions are creating aren't in the room when those decisions are made. We've seen over and over how big, shiny projects are allowed to go ahead, with convincing promises of jobs and wonderful things for local people, and after everyone's had some fun and one or two people have made a huge amount of money, what is so often left is just a permanently ruined natural environment and an eyesore that brings down the area's value and morale. Theme parks are fun! I like theme parks! But we're grown-ups and we have to be responsible about what is best for the country and the future. Swanscombe is simply the wrong place for this development, just like the Amazon rainforest is the wrong place for a new cattle farm. Swanscombe's unique mix of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands makes it so important for wildlife that Natural England have recommended it be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. That's something for the area to really be proud of, and local people deserve to be able to enjoy it – to have the chance, so rare nowadays although people growing up just a few decades ago took it for granted, to hear nightingales, to spot all sorts of beautiful wild flowers, to watch otters play. If we don't protect that, it's gone and it will never come back. Those animals and flowers will die, that's the sad and unavoidable truth beneath the London Resort's shiny branding and expertly written press releases that know to mention 'sustainability' but don't address this reality. This is a chance to keep a beautiful and precious place alive, to stand up for nature and people's right to enjoy it long into the future, rather than agree to it being destroyed forever on your watch. I really hope you'll make the right decision."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Parrish
"I consider it is imperative that the unique habitat and incredible range of wildlife on the Swanscombe Peninsula, a designated SSSI, be protected now and into the future. The site is home to critically endangered invertebrate species such as the jumping spider, together with many nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders and wasps making the site of extreme national importance. Added to this are the abundance of rare birds including Marsh Harriers and Black Redstart, and many important reptiles such as bats, and otters. Swanscombe Peninsula’s precious flora and fauna must be protected and not destroyed by any development such as this theme park. I am very concerned that so much wildlife and it’s environment has already been lost throughout the country. It is therefore more important than ever that the such a unique habitat as the Swanscome Peninsula is saved and protected. Swanscombe Peninsula is definitely not the right site for the proposed theme park. Conservation of our precious wildlife must take presdence."
Non-Statutory Organisations
British Horse Society
"The British Horse Society is the UK's largest equestrian charity, representing the country's 3 million horse riders. Nationally, equestrian have just 22% of the rights of way network, substantially less in Kent and so opportunities for improvement, enhancement and connectivity are sought from projects such as this. The BHS has previously responded to EDP regarding their public rights of way strategy plan saying, "We note from your map key the Rights of way to be created, and the Rights of way that will be removed. We assume that all rights of way will be multi-user to include equestrians, in which case we are unlikely to have any objection. If not, we will have to object to the changes, and the project." This comment stands."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Ernest Wheeler
"When I lived in Dartford and schooled in Gravesend, Swanscombe peninsula was but a bike ride away and I frequently visited it. My current knowledge is historical as I have not lived in the area for some time. When I first visited the peninsula the PLA had just started dumping the dredging material from the entrance of Tilbury Dock on to the saltmarsh. There were breeding Redshank, Lapwing, Ringed Plover and Little Ringed Plover as well as Oystercatcher. I recall seeing a flock of 30 Curlew Sandpipers there in August 1959 and finding a Marsh Sandpiper there in August 1963 (only the 14th occurrence in Britain). A Glossy Ibis in April 1974 was a very early record of a species which has since become more frequent. The reed beds and bushes were full of birds and other wildlife and even in those days it was a real haven surrounded as it was by industry, chalk quarrying etc. but now it is even more isolated by developments such as Ebbsfleet and transport links and additional development. The importance of its wildlife interest has been clearly demonstrated and this coupled with its unique habitat is surely worth conserving in this increasingly developed landscape of North Kent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Moss
"I wish to assess the environmental impact of the construction process, lifetime carbon footprint and the ongoing environmental management of the area to ensure this development is sustainable and ethical. I also want to assess how it will affect traffic flow in neighbouring towns, what employment opportunities and challenges it will create, and how the development will impact local businesses. I also want to see if any Section 106 arrangements are proposed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Wilson
"My wife and I have lived in Swanscombe for 8 years and are very aware of the detrimental effect of development that has been taking place all around us as part of the Ebbsfleet Garden City development. It is vital that the remaining green spaces, such as those at the Swanscombe peninsula are protected for future generations. I support Natural England’s recommendation that the site be designated a site of special scientific interest to protect our most important wildlife sites. During lockdown, and as part of my recovery from a heart attack, access to clean air and outdoor space has been a vital part of my rehabilitation. This proposed development l, which in my view is economically unsustainable and short sighted will threaten the habitat of the peninsula and its location as a rich breeding ground for visiting birds. There is a place for theme parks but I am afraid the Swanscombe peninsula is totally unsuited for the scale and type of development proposed. The projected visitor numbers will make the already polluted local environment even more of an environmental hazard and lead to further congestion on an over-burdened traffic network. I must appeal to you to reject this proposed development and help us protect this treasured environmental asset. Thank you for considering my representation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Cannell
"I am writing as a hugely concerned member of the British public. We have a catastrophic global climate emergency on our hands...our very future is at stake! If we bulldoze a that is left of our precious environment, there will be no animals, birds or humans left to occupy this precious planet! We have many endangered animals, birds and plants which rely on this area to survive. Please use your power to keep it that way. We are all counting on you!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Sullivan
"I am concerned about the threat to wildlife on the Swanscombe Peninsula should this planning application be approved because I am really disturbed by the enormous loss of biodiversity in this country. This has happened with increasing pace during my lifetime and we need to start reversing this decline now. The complex arrangement of habitats that have developed at Swanscombe and the extraordinary range of wildlife they support is a really good example of how we can begin to address this decline by letting nature take back land that humans have used in various ways in the past. A theme park is just totally wrong in this location. Giving permission for this to go ahead would indicate that we value a theme park more than our precious wildlife. This would also go against the Government’s promises to support the recovery of nature. The very recent designation of Swanscombe Peninsula as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) has happened because of a recognition that the site is nationally important for invertebrates, breeding birds, plants and geology. As a lifelong birdwatcher, I am particularly impressed by the site’s recognition as important for breeding birds, including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance - including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. But I have in recent years also become much more interested in, and concerned about, other wildlife and plant life. I was delighted to hear recently about the discovery of the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider at Swanscombe, which is found on only one other site in the UK. But I understand that there are over 250 other invertebrate species of conservation concern at Swanscombe. This site should therefore be left undisturbed by any further developments for humans so that the important habitats – grasslands, scrub and wetlands – can continue to support a wide range of wildlife. Destruction of any of the site by granting this planning permission would undermine this wonderful example of the recovery of nature. It is an example of some of the things we could do elsewhere to halt the loss of, and in time help increase, biodiversity in the UK. We must preserve what we have, even if, as in this case it is a site that has in the past been interfered with by humans, and not replace any part of this new SSSI by a theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Gordon
"The Swanscombe site is a haven for wildlife and holds some rare species. It is a necessary area to maintain as it is. It cannot be reproduced by 'moving soil elsewhere' for instance. A concreted over resort is not necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Martin Harman
"The Swanscombe and Greenhithe Residents’ Association would like to raise the following concerns: Does the extent of the proposed development protect the ecology of the site? The site is frequently referred to as ‘brownfield site’ which detracts from the diversity of flora, fauna and invertebrates that are located there. Swanscombe Peninsula is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grassland, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the sites complex human history. The ecological importance of the site is confirmed by Natural England who have identified it as a SSSI. Is the scale, form and massing of the proposed structures close to existing residential areas, appropriate? It would appear that the size of the development and the height of some of the buildings, up to 40 stories has grown exponentially since the first proposals were suggested. Day and night time visualisation should be revisited to understand the impacts on Swanscombe and areas closer to the site, for example Ingress Park housing estate. The amount of noise and other disturbance during construction phase is also a concern for local people. The nature of the ground and the proposed height of a number of buildings will need extensive pile driving, an activity that causes extreme distress to residents. How will this be mitigated. Has the impact on designated and none designated heritage assets been properly considered. Swanscombe Peninsula is an important area associated with the early development of the Cement and Paper Industries, landing points for pilgrims on their way to Canterbury etc. The assessment of the site in PIER 4 have not been updated since 2012 and is not based on up to date accurate information. The 2012 assessment makes no mention of existing businesses which support a number of jobs for local people including apprenticeships. There is no plan to relocate these business locally. In fact there are no local sites that can offer alternative accommodation to these businesses. Although the proposals indicate the possibilities of a large number of jobs, there are no details of the skills required nor the training to be given. The site is an important place for local informal recreation in an area that has seen many such open spaces disappear under the bricks, mortar and concrete of nearby Ebbsfleet Garden City and other developments, how does the developer aim to mitigate this loss? The proposals include a number of facilities to be located outside the pay gates. These include conference and entertainment venues. How do the developers see these becoming successful when, recent attempts by the established Bluewater complex to facilitate these types of services, have been abandoned through lack of public interest."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Save Swanscombe Peninsula
"Save Swanscombe Peninsula (SSP) is a community group (643 members) founded to protect the Peninsula as a community asset due to its great environmental value. We oppose the Development promoted by London Resort Company Holdings (Promoter). 1. Adverse impacts a. Biodiversity The Peninsula is a SSSI* covering 264.1ha, recognising its biodiversity and irreplaceable mosaic of habitats. The Development would cause: - Permanent loss of 100+ha of SSSI; - significant harm to additional areas of the SSSI during construction; - damage retained terrestrial and marine habitat and species assemblages due to fragmentation, noise, light pollution and human activity. Specifically (not exhaustive): - Botany Marsh West and Black Duck Marsh – 15.5ha grazing marsh, of International conservation value would be lost (Environmental Statement [‘ES’] Appendix 12.1); - invertebrate populations - 7 separate areas would be lost, each independently of ‘national importance’ (ES Appendix 12.1); - overwintering bird assemblage of international importance (ES Appendix 12.3); - breeding birds – 99 species; 17 Red List species, 29 Amber List species (ES ch 12); - vascular plant assemblages of national importance (ES ch 12); - impacts a Marine Conservation Zone The scale of SSSI loss is without precedent and contrary to the NPPF (S.175) and Dartford and Gravesham planning policy. In the ‘Site Option Assessment’ (ES Volume 2, Appendix 4.1) avoiding SSSIs was a material consideration. The same criteria must properly be reapplied, with the inescapable conclusion that the site, now a SSSI, is inappropriate for the Development. The principal mitigation strategy (to provide ‘biodiversity net gain’ through off-site habitat compensation) is inadequate. ‘Net gain’ has no policy relevance for an NSIP and the Promoter has failed to demonstrate how a habitat mosaic of such scale, diversity and richness is possible to compensate. The Promoter contends without the Development (ES, 12.205) the site will be neglected with further scrub encroachment. Actually, now designated a SSSI, with access to ‘net gain’ funding sources, and in context of Nature Recovery Network policy, the Peninsula will be positively managed for nature, further benefitting local communities. b. Local communities The local area is highly urbanised and undergoing rapid further development. The Peninsula is a vital resource for recreation, bird watching, naturalism and education, contributing to the health and wellbeing of local communities (both existing and planned) as recognised in the SSSI designation. The local loss of nature and urbanisation reported in the ES is contrary to the 25 Year Environment Plan and the Dartford Core Strategy. Off-site habitat compensation is proposed in a remote part of Swale, over 30 minutes’ drive away and inaccessible by public transport. This will not compensate the negative impact on local communities due to the adverse environmental impacts at the Kent Project Site. c. Socio-economic Thousands of existing jobs are risked in the estimated 140 businesses affected by compulsory acquisition (‘CA’). It would compound blight caused by the shadow of CA over the businesses since the NSIP designation (2014). There is a known scarcity of local commercial property. The dislocation of businesses over a short period can be expected to further imbalance supply / demand locally, increasing values. We consider the ES may over-state the economic benefits of the Development by: - Over-estimating job creation, particularly locally; - Under-estimating the economic impact of competition with local retail and town centres, and theme park / leisure businesses nationally. - Not adequately accounting for economic costs (in accordance with Natural Capital accounting principles [25 Year Environment Plan]). d. Traffic The Development would significantly increase local traffic (ES) with an associated air pollution health risk in one of the most congested parts of the UK and worst for air quality. It will create severance and amenity impacts on the community and adversely impact the SSSI. e. Visual The Development would cause a significant adverse visual impact on an important and unique landscape. Approximately 50% of the Botany Marsh LCA would be lost. f. Climate Change The Development is incompatible with Net Zero policy commitments. g. Heritage and Archaeology The Development risks damage to known archaeological features and those as yet undiscovered in a location rich in history. h. Hydrology The Promoter should be required to demonstrate it has robustly modelled and reported the impact on hydrology on a ‘cumulative effects’ basis, accounting for climate change. 2. Adequacy of DCO Application SSP have the following concerns (not exhaustive): a. ES Conclusions Many are difficult to reconcile with the data and risk understating impacts. Regards mitigation, the ES is considered likely to either (i) provide insufficient detail to draw objective conclusion (ii) or overstate the likely effect. b. Site selection Assessment This underestimated the biodiversity value of the site. The Promoter should demonstrate it has objectively re-assessed the options based on updated relevant evidence and the subsequent environmental designations (SSSI, MCZ). c. Biodiversity off-setting The Promoter provided insufficient detail during the Statutory Consultation (and in the ES) on ‘biodiversity offsetting’ on which Consultees could reach an informed conclusion. * Natural England designated the Swanscombe Peninsular to be an SSI on 11th March 2021 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/swanscombe-peninsula-gets-national-recognition-as-an-sssi"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Swanscombe and Greenhitrhe Residents’ Association
"The Swanscombe and Greenhithe Residents’ Association would like to raise the following concerns: Does the extent of the proposed development protect the ecology of the site? The site is frequently referred to as ‘brownfield site’ which detracts from the diversity of flora, fauna and invertebrates that are located there. Swanscombe Peninsula is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grassland, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the sites complex human history. The ecological importance of the site is confirmed by Natural England who have identified it as a SSSI. Is the scale, form and massing of the proposed structures close to existing residential areas, appropriate? It would appear that the size of the development and the height of some of the buildings, up to 40 stories has grown exponentially since the first proposals were suggested. Day and night time visualisation should be revisited to understand the impacts on Swanscombe and areas closer to the site, for example Ingress Park housing estate. The amount of noise and other disturbance during construction phase is also a concern for local people. The nature of the ground and the proposed height of a number of buildings will need extensive pile driving, an activity that causes extreme distress to residents. How will this be mitigated. Has the impact on designated and none designated heritage assets been properly considered. Swanscombe Peninsula is an important area associated with the early development of the Cement and Paper Industries, landing points for pilgrims on their way to Canterbury etc. The assessment of the site in PIER 4 have not been updated since 2012 and is not based on up to date accurate information. The 2012 assessment makes no mention of existing businesses which support a number of jobs for local people including apprenticeships. There is no plan to relocate these business locally. In fact there are no local sites that can offer alternative accommodation to these businesses. Although the proposals indicate the possibilities of a large number of jobs, there are no details of the skills required nor the training to be given. The site is an important place for local informal recreation in an area that has seen many such open spaces disappear under the bricks, mortar and concrete of nearby Ebbsfleet Garden City and other developments, how does the developer aim to mitigate this loss? The proposals include a number of facilities to be located outside the pay gates. These include conference and entertainment venues. How do the developers see these becoming successful when, recent attempts by the established Bluewater complex to facilitate these types of services, have been abandoned through lack of public interest."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Totteridge Estates Limited
"My commercial involvement with the Northfleet Ind Estate dates back to 1987 when I acted as Commercial property agent for Clients, and over the years have acted for other Landlords down on the estate which now includes Manorway Business Park. More recently my involvement has been as a direct investor and landowner , through Northfleet Estates but also Totteridge Estates Limited where I own commercial land which is leased out to third parties I was involved with negotiations and Union Railways when the estates were split in half for the HS1 railway line and then in helping to rebuild the estates afterwards. I have been involved with these theme park proposals and LRCH since the inception and know most of their development team. I was a founder member of business group PMG (Peninsular Management Group), My summary of objections are that LRCH have never properly liaised with businesses in any meaningful way as they are required to do in order to obtain the grant of compulsory purchase powers over them. They know it is not the case despite their DCO application claims to have done so. This is the result of an absolutely shambolic lack of direction of any kind of from the top, no money to do anything or tie up any deals and no intention of ever doing other than trying to get a blanket compulsory order to save effort and kick these businesses out at rock bottom prices. They have absolutely no intention of offering rehoming elsewhere and in the application confirm that is their position. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION • This NSIP application should never have been granted due to mis representation. They never stated that the Estates extending to 40 Acres and the associated 120 businesses were in the way nor that there would be thousands of job losses on the Northfleet Estates. The applicant should be made to reapply for an NSIP under the prevailing conditions. • There is no established ‘need’ for a theme park as part of the DCO acceptance, only attempts to justify a job creation scheme based on highly doubtful business projections, whilst not taking into account the loss of existing jobs many of which will be extinguished if development is approved and replaced with ZERO HOUR season jobs • We were informed by the Planning Inspectorate that a DCO application would not be accepted unless there were suitable guarantees that the project could be financed. Accounts files with Companies house have shown late filing across all of the DCO promoters companies • Contrary to the statements made in the DCO application, the applicant has never meaningfully engaged with any of the businesses on the estates in the manner required under the DCO rules and still is not doing so. No contact has been received specific to Land owned by Totteridge Estates Limited, and other than a circular from Savills to Northfleet Estates Limited nothing dialogue has developed • The applicant has grossly misrepresented their contacts with PMG in the DCO application. Last meeting that took place was in the spring of 2018, and any subsequent updates have been channelled through via news and social media. How can this be considered as engagement with landowners, after all we are the ones affected! • The applicant has misrepresented claims to have made offers of enhanced compensation to businesses on the Northfleet Estates. To my knowledge, there is not a single offer that has been made to any business • Prior to selling some of my land interests in the open market , (x2 sales now completed) these were offered to LRCH, and they chose not to buy the Estates Infrastructure Roads and the affected Kent Kraft Estate comprising 15 tenanted incoming producing industrial units • This applicant has never had any money. Despite the fact that it would have significantly helped their case for a CPO if they had been seen to be purchasing property on these estates as it has become available over the last eight years, they have never invested in a single property on these estates at any time, despite having had the opportunity to do so and at attractive rates of financial return. • Nothing this applicant says or promises can been substantiated nor delivered. There have been four previously publicly announced DCO application dates, they have never purchased any property here, they made a manifest omission to notify the SOS and planning inspectorate at NSIP stage that the scheme involved any job losses or about 40 acres of industrial estates were in the way. • Permitted CPO powers should NOT be given"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vitesse Investments Ltd Buckland Dartford Ltd & PMG
"My Name is Douglas Hilton. I represent Vitesse Investments Ltd, Buckland Dartford Ltd and am a director of the peninsular management company (PMG) I am the principle director of the above two companies that own land on what I will refer to as ‘The Northfleet Estates’. These include the Kent Kraft Estate, Manor Way Business Park, the Northfleet Industrial Estate and the Rod End Estate. My commercial involvement with these estates extends back more than thirty years. I have previously been a principle director of two other companies that owned other land on the estates and the private roadways. As previous owner of the roadways, I had to levy the estate service charges and therefore have intimate knowledge of these estates, the businesses on them and the damage that is already and will be done to them if these proposals are ever granted compulsory purchase powers. I played a significant role in the final negotiations with Union Railways when they cut the estates in half for the HS1 railway line and then in helping to rebuild the estates afterwards. I have been involved with these theme park proposals and LRCH since the inception and know most of their development team. I was a founder member of business group PMG (Peninsular Management Group), remain a director and have been the only one to discuss the so called ‘offer of enhanced compensation’ with LRCH and to pass comments thereon (which they have ignored). I will explain the entirely inappropriate nature of this ‘theoretical’ offer and their complete lack of appropriate consultation with the businesses on these estates. As this is supposed to be a summary of objections that will be amplified at a later stage in the process, I will keep my areas of objection narrow and expand later. • General ‘hub’ nature and importance of these estates to the surrounding area: These estates contain 140 plus businesses and operate across a wide range of business types. Many are family businesses. LRCH have never liaised with businesses in any meaningful way as they are required to do in order to obtain the grant of compulsory purchase powers over them. They know it is not the case despite their DCO application claims to have done so. This is the result of an absolutely shambolic lack of direction of any kind of from the top, no money to do anything or tie up any deals and no intention of ever doing anything other than trying to get a blanket compulsory purchase order to save effort and kick out these businesses at rock bottom prices. They have absolutely no intention of offering rehoming elsewhere and in the DCO application confirm that is their position. Based on what happened when the railway came through these estates in 2000, it will mean that at least 75 % or more of these businesses will not survive. A loss of over 100 companies and 2,000 plus jobs. We estimate that there are currently around 8-900 full time people actually working on the estates every day. This does not include staff that are employed by management companies based on the estate but get sent work in other places such as builders and electricians etc. It does not include the substantial numbers of part time staff, businesses that rely on supplying the estates with products, or those that rely on the products of the estates for a living. It does not include businesses that work elsewhere and use the estate as an essential goods storage depot or rely on the essential waste tipping facilities that are part of Kent’s strategic waste hub. These estates are in effect the service, storage and maintenance hub for many other businesses and wider society and not just simple industrial units. Rip these estates out and you tear out the service centre and essential heart of the community and the city we are building between Dartford and Gravesend. Due to this ‘hub’ type effect, we estimate the job multiplier at approximately 3.25 to those actually working every day at the estates: approximately 3,000 jobs that rely on the estates. Loss of these businesses would also result in the loss of vital and varied skill sets. Skills that post BREXIT, this country needs to create new manufacturing and businesses development. A snapshot of businesses on the estate today would include: car repairers, MOT bays, specialist paint suppliers, highly specialist engineering companies, steel fabricators, dairy suppliers, coach hire, car sales, plant hire, building material suppliers, marble craftsmen, demolition contractors, office and general cleaners, several types of vital waste industries, car breakers, printers, couriers, car sales, steelworkers, charity HQ’s, joiners, electrical engineers, ready mixed concrete firms, plumbers, cleaning firms, food storage, bottle blow molders, bridal fabric suppliers, scaffolders, entertainment companies, joinery companies, chocolatiers, take away food suppliers and a vast array of other large and small niche businesses including storage and distribution companies that are a vital central resource for many other businesses and cheap serviced office accommodation. The cheap office accommodation combined with either container storage or the storage and distribution companies are the breeding ground for growing future captains of industry. Some say this is a very unusual mix and that the estates are not of the new and shiny kind. Well, it is a very rare and unusual mix. Sorry to the new and shiny brigade but these estates are entirely suitable for the vital purposes they serve and it is the very blight caused by these theme park proposals that has been stopping more new employment units being built and suppressing the estates. My own companies have new units on the drawing board that are being held up, there are eight on the Rod End Estate and a further four acres just waiting for this blight to go away. Only if these estates get wiped out will local areas realise just how much of a loss to the cohesion of the area and the number jobs and wide range of services they have lost. There isn’t anywhere else for these businesses to go locally as will be proved to the inspectorate. Even LRCH recognise this. The other point is that many of these businesses, especially motor trade and waste are never accepted on modern estates. Where will the waste hubs go let alone the rest? It is nothing short of economic and social vandalism for LRCH to propose a non-essential theme park for which there is no demonstrated demand and in the process propose to gut the essential services out of an area and throw them away with no offer of relocation. • This NSIP application should never have been granted due to manifest misdeclaration. They never stated that any businesses were in the way or that there would be thousands of job losses on the Northfleet Estates. The applicant should be made to reapply for an NSIP under the prevailing conditions. • There has been no established ‘need’ for a theme park as part of the DCO acceptance, only attempts to justify a job creation scheme based on highly doubtful business projections. • We were informed by the Planning Inspectorate that a DCO application would not be accepted unless there were suitable guarantees that the project could be financed. I significantly challenge that they were able to do this and therefore the application should not have been accepted. • Contrary to the statements made in the DCO application, the applicant has never meaningfully engaged with any of the businesses on the estates in the manner required under the DCO rules and still is not doing so. • The applicant has grossly misrepresented their contacts with PMG in the DCO application. To represent that contact with anyone from PMG means that they thought were effectively contacting all businesses on the estates is a lie. They have at all time been aware that PMG simply represents any company on the estate interested in attending a meeting with them. By 2018, only four persons from the estate including myself had any passing interest in continuing to listen to their failed promises and hollow words. The last physical meeting was only attended by myself and likewise a zoom meeting. During both of these meetings it was made clear that they were not meetings with PMG. No one on behalf of PMG has ever represented that it is, was or ever has been a conduit to every business on the estates and at all times they have been made aware of their responsibility to contact every business on the estates themselves. They even asked if PMG held lists of companies and were told that PMG do not and never had. They have never meaningfully consulted with businesses here and there should be no question of granting them compulsory purchase powers. • The applicant manifestly misrepresents a claim to have made offers of enhanced compensation to businesses on the Northfleet Estates. To my knowledge, there is not a single offer that has been made to any business and despite requesting to see a draft legal agreement they have failed to show me one. I doubt if they have any. There should be no question of granting them compulsory purchase powers. • The enhanced compensation proposal that only I discussed with them is totally inappropriate and although I wrote explaining the problems with their proposals in detail, they have ignored my comments. At the moment it hasn’t mattered because they never intended dealing with any companies anyway and only sent letters around to some just before Christmas asking them to contact them about their wonderful offer. At least one company I know is still trying to get a reaction of any kind from them. • Their proposal of enhanced compensation is for a five year agreement. How does this square with their statements to have the finance they need, that they intend to get on with the project the moment they are given permission and need these estates before they can get on site. Why do they need five years if any credibility can be placed on a single word they say? • Their proposal of enhanced compensation would allow them to purchase with or without a CPO in place. To sell without a CPO in place could spell economic ruin to any company as there would be no CPO tax relief and this was pointed out to them. • Their proposal of enhanced is to add a 30% uplift on a starting valuation and then indexation tied to the retail price index. Firstly the index relates to domestic rents and the price of milk and bread etc and is completely inapplicable to property. With land here having price increases of 20% plus per year over the last ten years. Their proposed offer is not an offer that could be accepted by any company and is therefore not an offer at all. There has been no attempt to negotiate with companies on these estates and their application for a DCO and compulsory purchase powers should be refused • This applicant has never had any money. Despite the fact that it would have significantly helped their case for a CPO if they had been seen to be purchasing property on these estates as it has become available over the last eight years, they have never invested in a single property on these estates at any time, despite having had the opportunity to do so and at attractive rates of financial return. • Nothing this applicant says or promises can be trusted. There have been four previously publicly announced DCO application dates, they have never purchased any property here, they made a manifest omission to notify the SOS and planning inspectorate at NSIP stage that the scheme involved any job losses or about 40 acres of industrial estates were in the way. They have had three CEO’s continually making and breaking promises, continual announcements of having reached agreements with construction companies, ITV and financiers that never materialised and grossly misrepresented meetings with PMG and their significance. They should under no circumstances be permitted CPO powers. • Their final online consultation is highly suspect. Several businesses including my own had trouble with making online consultation submissions, so much so that there has to be a suspicion that algorithms were being used to detect negative feedback once the first pages were completed and thereafter to make it difficult to complete or submit the form. I can and will expand on this later. Ends"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Emmerson
"We are currently in a biodiversity crisis and a site like Swanscombe should not be destroyed by development. Numerous redlisted bird species use the site as well as 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern. The light pollution, noise and disturbance will ruin the site for all the wildlife. The building of the site and the ongoing travel of visitors to the site will also increase carbon emissions at a time we have to reduce the UKs carbon output. This area of the UK has little enough wild space for the conservation of our wild heritage. More weight should be given to the value of the wildlife and biodiversity over the unnecessary development needs. We should be looking to preserve and increase areas such as this to benefit us all in future years."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Arthur Gelling
"Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of habitats and wildlife. It features a unique mosaic of coastal habitat, grassland, scrub and wetlands, and Natural England have recommended it be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest. Invertebrates: According to NE the site supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered spider (Attulus distinguendus) which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is also host to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance for invertebrates. Avian: The site supports a very rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. Botanical: The site hosts 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species, including 5 red-listed species. Herpetiles and mammals: The site features locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Off-setting: It is simply NOT POSSIBLE to reproduce this level of complex habitat mosaic by translocation. Off-setting cannot replace the existing habitat. National Infrastructure: For a resort development to be categorised as "Nationally Significant Infrastructure" is an extraordinary stretch of the definition of the term: The development is a commercial development like many other resorts, and as such is neither "infrastructure" nor of "national significance"."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dan Bramwell
"I am a private individual who, prior to retirement, advised the businesses on the Swanscombe Peninsular, as a Public Affairs Consultant, and have grave concerns about this application, namely: * How the pre-application process was handled by the Applicant and the ability to get a clear understanding of their intentions ; * The failure of the Applicant to fully engage and work co-operatively with interested landowners and the businesses; * The use of inaccurate information to seek NSIP powers and subsequent presentation thereafter; * Inaccurate description of site, including failure to recognise existing uses on site and valued biodiversity resources; * Hence, highly flawed site assessments in the Applicant’s November 2014 and June 2020 Scoping Reports; * Very grave concerns that neither MHCLG or PINS validate the site information presented by the Applicant in accepting request for NSIP status and thereafter, thus unnecessarily wasting civil servants time and taxpayers money; * Initial plan submitted with NSIP correspondence indicates only west industrial estates will be required and included within the red line boundary. However, final DCO Application plan incorporates all industrial estates, both to west and east of HS1 route accommodating approx 140 businesses; * There was no specific engagement and/or detailed consultation with the businesses and/or landowners prior to this change and, furthermore, such a critical and major change should have been referred back to the Secretary of State MHCLG detailing the impacts and consequences of such a change so that the use of NSIP powers could be reviewed; * Lack of credibility and financial robustness of Applicant, especially in dealing with businesses, and lack of respect for existing landowners and businesses; * Impact on existing businesses and landowners, including blight and financial impact on individual businesses leading to long-term uncertainty due to inability of Applicant’s intentions and development strategy. This is demonstrated by the fact that LRCH’s latest Chief Executive hasn’t even visited or had any contact with the industrial estates whilst his predecessor was not even aware that the businesses existed until he visited them; * Lack of adequate public consultation, especially with businesses, some receiving notification of events AFTER closing dates and others not being advised about events at all; * Impact on adjacent Swanscombe Marshes and the wider area, its wildlife resources and the long-term impact should the development be allowed - once the site is lost it can never be replaced and there is no such thing as an alternative replacement site of equivalent value; * Grave concerns as to why the Government is granting loans under the British Business Bank to help fund the Application when it will also be the eventual juror - stinks of political interference; * In summary, this project is not of national significance but is a private commercial venture which has no national importance. If this Application is permitted, it will set a dangerous precedent for all landowners, both residential and commercial, in the future and no land will be safe from unwanted and unnecessary development, drastically weakening the importance of NSIP applications!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Parry
"Planners should be encouraging restoration, not profit-making enterprises of no intrinsic value. This site is more valuable as its designation implies – an SSSI – to allow nationally important invertebrates, birds and flora to thrive. We don’t need yet another ‘theme park’!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Lees
"If said planning goes ahead unique diversity and habitat will be lost. In the current climate this goes against all common sense to proceed with such devastating actions. Not only Swanscombe bay but the surrounding landscapes flora, fauna and diversity will be impacted. Unique areas such as Swanscombe bay need protection not development, please rethink the placement of this planning. Regards, Eric"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Horticultural Works
"I am a Director of Horticultural Works. We occupy Unit [] under a leasehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business is the retail of hydroponics and horticultural equipment and we employ around 10 staff. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain both customers and staff. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Robins
"Natual England has declared that the Swanscombe Penninsula should be declared a SSSI due to its unique hstory and the wealth of invertebrates, wild life species and plantlife, including endangered species, that this strech of land supports. The covid pandemic has further focused attention on the need to be respectful of this planet an on the perils of destroying ever decreasing areas of biodiversity. I witness in my own area sraps of land, biodiverse and used by locals being snapped up for development and once concreted they are lost for good. Biodiversity and the negative environmental impact associated with its loss are well documented in this day an age and I sincerely hope that for the good of all the Swansombe Penninsula is preserved as a SSSI."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Williams
"Swanscombe is a unique, precious habitat supporting hundreds of rare and special species. Allowing it to be destroyed or fragmented would be a tragedy. Biodiversity is not lost in one fell swoop, it is chipped away at with actions such as this proposal. Every decision counts. If we continue to allow nature to be built upon, we will shortly have nothing but concrete left to us and to future generations. It is so important to protect each and every site that supports wildlife, especially as a biodiversity crisis has been declared. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and is only meeting 5 of its 20 Aichi targets (State of Nature Report, 2019). We should be doing everything we can to reverse this trend, not compounding it with projects like this. I am sure economic concerns will be at the heart of the argument for the proposal, but the local economy needs a green recovery and green jobs, not this devastating plan. It is not hyperbole to say that the economy will count for nothing if we continue destroying nature. The world's eyes are on us, as the hosts of COP26, and we must act to stop wildlife loss, starting by protecting and preserving Swanscombe."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Jetstream Tours
"Our company is responsible for the operation of the Gravesend to Tilbury ferry, which is operated on behalf of Kent County Council. The contract is partly funded by Thurrock Borough Council and both councils are expected to also provide representation based on further shoreside aspects. Our representation concerns regarding the positioning of the proposed "Park and glide" pontoon which fails to provide sufficient detail to provide confidence that the existing ferry operation is not effected. PIERS Ch 10.61 states The proposals will not affect the operation of the existing Tilbury to Gravesend Ferry, as the physical infrastructure nor vessel movements for the London Resort will infringe on the route of the ferry. The ferry service has not been consulted, a navigational risk assesment has not been submitted, artist impressions suggest existing berthing routes are blocked and no design specification for the pontoon to mitigate for an uninterrupted ferry service are provided. We would also wish to extend our representation to include Air quality emmisons data which provides adequate roadside data and construction equipment but fails to mention any data for riverboat traffic. Both riverboune traffic for construction and ongoing passenger traffic is not featured. The suggested 50,000 vessel movements per year does not feature in Piers CH16 and as marine engines are much larger than roadside units data does not provide sufficient evidence to ensure the infrastructure can meet Net Zero 2050."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Rees Puckett
"I visited this site some years ago with the Kent group of the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI). I was struck by the botanical diversity and the number of rare plants recorded. I was appalled by the thought that this extremely rich mosaic habitat would be largely destroyed by an amusement park. It is obviously an inappropriate site for a theme park. It has been recently notified as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. As such it supports a nationally important assemblage of invertebrates including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider, Attulus distinguendus. The site has 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance. All these have been recorded breeding on site. Botanically 5 red-listed plant species such as Man Orchid have been recorded. Wildlife countrywide is in drastic decline and thus it is more important than ever to protect our SSSI network. The Swanscombe Peninsular is an inappropriate place to develop a theme park. We must value and protect our precious wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Moore
"We need special nature, wildlife and natural spaces far more than a theme park. So let's build it somewhere else, somewhere less important- preferably a brown field space. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Herring
"I am a local resident of Greenhithe and, as such, I frequently visit Swanscombe Marshes with my dogs. The area in which I live is becoming increasingly built up and very little open space remains. A walk to Swanscombe Marshes provides a welcome retreat from the bustle of living in a heavily-populated area as well as from the noise and pollution caused by the volume of traffic in this area. Given that this area is amongst the most polluted regions of the Uk, having a local green area that can provide some respite is essential to people’s mental and physical wellbeing. You will be aware that Swanscombe Marshes has recently been designated a a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The area is home to over 250 species of invertebrates of conservation concern, including one species that is found on only one other site in the UK. Ironically, the other site is in Thurrock across the river, an area that has its own development issues. As well as the important invertebrate species, Swanscombe Marshes is home a wide variety of birds and mammals. Many of the birds that make their home on Swanscombe Marshes are of conservation concern, including 12 Species of Principal Importance such as Marsh Harriers, Nightingales and Bearded Tit. I have seen many of these birds myself whilst walking on the marshes. Whilst I haven’t personally seen them, I am told that there are also water voles and otters on the Marshes as well as bats (which I have seen). One of the great pleasures afforded by Swanscombe Marshes is to stop and listen to the bird song and the chorus from the frogs and toads on the water. All of this will be lost if this development is allowed to proceed. Swanscombe Marshes should be left alone as a local resource for humans and a habitat for a variety of wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Rylands
"We are in the midst of a climate and biodiversity crisis, to have to campaign to save one of the UK’s most important wildlife sites against this backdrop shows these dangers are ignored. Add in the pandemic and the increasing evidence linking the availability of green space to the welfare of local communities it is more important than ever these areas are conserved and their protection recognised. The incredible biodiversity and associated history of Swanscombe should not be simply thrown aside to deliver even critical infrastructure, let alone a theme park. The peninsula is a national treasure that cannot be replaced, other such treasures such as Windsor Castle or Stonehenge would never be considered a suitable location for a new theme park. The unique mix of habitats are rarely found in more natural settings, they have been created over time and support hundreds of species of conservation concern. This includes the publically charismatic species such as water vole that are protected by legislation but many more much rarer species that are overlooked by the planning process. Fortunately the presence of these less distinguished species has been recognised by the government’s conservation agency Natural England. Any development here not only destroys Swanscombe, pushing species further to the brink of extinction but will set a precedent that threatens future and ongoing encroachment on the entire network of designated sites."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Wertheimer
"There have been many authenticated studies into the economic and health benefits of wildlife sites. These areas are open and free to everyone. Unlike amusement parks which many cannot access due to the costs. Brownfield sites can be used to create these expensive parks. As I live in a built up area, my estate has organised trips to Swanscombe to escape from the heavy pollution and see nature at its best. An area like Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- it is vital to protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. Many of these are protected species."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynne McNulty
"England is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world. The situation is now very serious and the pandemic has highlighted how important our natural spaces are for our mental and physical well being. This site hosts a range of red listed birds including nightingales and bearded tits. It has a huge number of invertebrates that are rare and endangered and also rare plant species. One can also see mammals such as bats including the barbastelle. Natural England have recommended that the site be declared an SSSI stating that the “Swanscombe Peninsula is an exceptional and exemplar site in a unique location within the ecological context of the Thames Estuary.” To allow this special place to become an amusement park would be short term thinking of the very worst kind."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Reeves
"Swanscombe is a site of special scientific interest and habitat for many rare and endangered species. It must be protected as a valuable natural environment where rare species can continue to thrive. This country needs to increase its efforts to protect endangered species and avoid destruction of habitats which have taken centuries to develop. There is no way to replace a site like Swanscombe. Please do not destroy this special place. There are many sites for a theme park for entertainment but few truly amazing natural habitats for wildlife. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Twigg
"This area is a highly valuable ecosystem and source of biodiversity that needs protection. In particular this area provides much valued greenspace that should be protected for the benefit of future generations. Living through lockdown has taught us that having green spaces where communities can connect with nature and experience peace and tranquility are vital for health an wellbeing."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Orpington Field Club
"I am writing on behalf of the Orpington Field Club (members of which have a particular interest in the biodiversity of sites within the London Borough of Bromley and the adjoining boroughs) regarding the above. Members of the Orpington Field Club request that the proposed development of this site as a Theme Park (under the umbrella of a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP)) is reviewed; the previous application did not take into account the recent designation by Natural England of this area as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. This designation rightly recognises the area as a nationally important wildlife-rich site having a great diversity of habitats (coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands) supporting an extremely rich fauna and flora. Our wildlife is under threat from many causes as the recent State of Nature Report 2019 has underlined and this area as one of the last remaining large examples of Open Mosaic Habitats on Previously Developed Land in the Thames Estuary must be protected. At present the site performs an important function in mitigating climate change by sequestering carbon in plants and in the soil. This will be lost if the site is built on; in addition the very act of development with all the associated carbon-excesses and pollution will severely impact on the carbon-zero policies of Greater London and beyond. Our particular concerns include the following • An extremely rich invertebrate fauna upon which animals higher up the food chain rely • 250 invertebrate species of Conservation Concern (Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce species) • the presence of the Critically Endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider and the Endangered Duffey’s Bell-head Spider • the aquatic invertebrate fauna is of significance at the county and regional level. • regionally important breeding bird assemblage including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 species of Principal Importance including Nightingale, Grasshopper Warbler, Cuckoo and Marsh tit • 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species including Man Orchid and 4 Vulnerable species including Yellow Vetchling and Slender Hare’s ear • Exceptional populations of Common Lizard and Slow Worm • Breeding populations of the Red-listed Water Vole and dormouse • Locally important area for bats with at least 9 species recorded including the Nationally Rare Barbastelle The huge double impact of biodiversity loss and increased carbon emissions makes this area unsuitable for development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Philip Holms
"I will describe the importance of the site for biodiversity, its unique location, and the need to protect and enhance it for future generations."
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Southern Gas Networks Plc
"Dear Sirs London Resort Company Holdings (Promoter) Application for an Order Granting Development Consent for the London Resort entertainment resort at the Swanscombe Peninsula and adjacent Ebbsfleet Station in Kent (Order). Planning Inspectorate Reference: BC080001 Objection on behalf of Southern Gas Networks Plc (SGN) 25 March 2021 Addleshaw Goddard LLP acts on behalf of SGN and is authorised to make this relevant representation on its behalf in objection to the proposed Order. SGN is the licensed gas transporter for the Order area, and objects so as to ensure the protection of its interests in land and apparatus and the safe and effective operation of its gas transportation network. As a responsible statutory undertaker, SGN's primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. The Promoter seeks powers within the Order for the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in which SGN is interested. SGN therefore wishes to protect its position in light of existing apparatus which is both within, and in the vicinity of, the proposed Order boundaries through suitable protective provisions being secured in the Order. SGN’s rights to retain its infrastructure in situ and rights of access to inspect, repair and renew such apparatus within the limits of the respective Order must be maintained at all times, and access by SGN and its servants and agents to that apparatus for the purpose of its undertaking must not be restricted. Accordingly, SGN will require appropriate protective provisions to be included within the Order to protect its statutory undertaking and to ensure that public safety is not compromised. Equally both the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the project will not cause a serious detriment to the carrying out by SGN of its statutory undertaking before granting consent to the proposed Order. In view of the above, and pending agreement with the Promoter, SGN objects to the Promoter's application and reserves its right to make further representations during the Examination process should that be so necessary. However, SGN is in the process of reviewing the draft Order and associated plans, and looks forward to engaging constructively with the Promoter in an effort to resolve all issues of concern. Should the Examining Authority require any additional information from SGN further to this representation, please contact Charlotte Jones of Addleshaw Goddard LLP, 3 Sovereign Square, Sovereign Street, Leeds LS1 4ER Yours faithfully Addleshaw Goddard LLP"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Halstead
"The Swanscombe Peninsular is now a proposed Site of Special Scientific Interest due to the wide range of habitats and an impressive list of scarce plants, vertebrate and invertebrate animals that have been recorded there. It is the wrong place for the development of a theme park that would utterly change the character of the place and destroy this special place for wildlife. Britain needs to protect such places to ensure that the loss and fragmentation of premium wildlife sites that has occurred in the past is not repeated."
Local Authorities
Basildon Borough Council
"Basildon Council is a neighbouring authority under Duty to Cooperate, and supports the Resort proposal on its planning merits. It makes good use of a brownfield site and will create jobs in a deprived area. However, from reviewing the supporting documents, the Council does think that some realism must be retained as to what the project can and can't achieve. The Employment and Skills strategy notes that 10,000 of the 17,300 jobs are part time and seasonal. It is unclear what type of retail provision is sought at Ebbsfleet - this may not be able to be separated from the current malaise on the high street. For the Resort to follow the same growth trend as Disneyland Paris there are links to non-Planning matters such as immigration rules now that the UK has left the EU, the ongoing attractiveness of the UK as an attraction for significant foreign investment, but also the continuation of cheap and easy international travel, which does not sit too easily with the UN Global Goals for Sustainable Development. Travel appears to concentrate too heavily on journeys starting and finishing in Greater London, while no mention was made of direct coach services to and from airports such as Gatwick or Stansted. That is an oversight if overseas visitors would firstly need to undertake an expensive and unnecessary journey into Central London. A little more clarity is needed on who the target market is: overseas or domestic visitors? If both, then greater connectivity is needed between the site and other trip generators (Lakeside/Bluewater shopping centres) and other principal towns and suitable liaison with transport providers will be needed. Also, trends within the holiday market will have an impact: further clarity on whether the 'resort' is seen as a main holiday destination in itself or whether it would be a stop-off for a short period for a day or two where visitors spend the rest of a trip exploring the wider area could be helpful, as this may influence the degree of additional transport connections or extra capacity on routes required. While the Resort is a good idea and has real planning merits, the Council is unsure as to the overall demand for this facility. The developers expect that the UK should already have “two or three” globally recognised theme parks, but the measures they have used to calculate this figure are less clear-cut. While this proposal has clear planning merits, makes good use of brownfield land and will be a significant employment generator, the fact that such ‘globally recognised’ theme parks do not presently exist in the UK - with a population of almost 67 million people - may be indicative of a general overall lack of demand. This does not appear to have been contemplated by the developers, but parks such as the American Adventure in Derbyshire also failed despite being hugely popular during the first half of its existence from 1986-2007."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Bryant
"The Marshes have been recognised as worthy of SSSI status, they are so important for biodiversity of invertebrate, mammal, bird life and more. To destroy this habitat would amount to a crime against not just the people living in the local area, but all of us who rely on the natural world for our continued existence - including future generations. Each piece of habitat that is lost from our country cannot be easily restored once we realise the self-destructive mistake we have made. You only have to read scientific studies into restoration projects to understand that mitigation can never properly restore the ecosystem structures of these sites that developers destroy in a mater of weeks. I strongly object to this development on this basis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire McQuillam
"I object very strongly to this development going ahead. Not only is a development of this kind not needed in the area but the devastating impact that it will have on the local flora and fauna is heartbreaking. The area has been been given the status of SSSI for a very important reason. The area is home to a plethora of wildlife some of which is only found in this location and one other: the distinguished jumping spider. The bird life is varied and a great place for ornithologists and wildlife photographers. Amazing photos from the area are a daily occurrence on social media. Lockdown has also shown that green areas are vital to mental health and general well-being. The marshes are frequented by locals and those from further afield on a daily basis. They offer people the opportunity to reconnect with nature and observe the great variety of species that call it home. The area already has the highest air pollution levels in the country and an increase in traffic and footfall would only lead to an increase in air, light and noise pollution. The increase in traffic will only lead to further congestion and bringing the area to a standstill. This is already a nightmare for residents living in such close proximity to the Dartford Crossing. Also this development will not bring long term employment to the area especially as long established businesses are destroyed in order to build this monstrosity. The low paid employment on offer will not make it feasible for park employees to rent or buy in the area. And who would want to live in an area which will be permanently congested and bright and noisy. Not to mention the increase in vermin infestation from the displaced rodents from the marshes. I have lived in the area for a long time and I have witnessed green areas slowly disappearing to more and more developments. I have also witnessed increased flooding in the area as developers build more houses on flood plains. The marshes play a vital role in reducing flooding and, for the bigger picture, reduce the risk of London being at a greater risk of flooding. These comments are just the tip of the iceberg regarding the destruction that this development will bring. We cannot replicate nature as well as nature can look after itself. The flora and fauna will take years to recover if ever. Only when we have destroyed everything will humans realise that money cannot replace nature and the environment and how much we rely on nature."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Wood
"There's already and lot of green land being built on in Swanscombe and greenhithe. It's as if any bit of spare land is being taken away. The marshes are a lovely place to walk and see the wildlife and plants flowers etc. Kent is quoted as the garden of England. This will soon be the concrete garden instead. The rds surrending this area are all ready not coping. This is not a great idea in this area. Find somewhere else to put a theme park"
Other Statutory Consultees
Forestry Commission
"The Forestry Commission is a non-ministerial government department, and the government’s forestry expert. We are a statutory consultee for all Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects, including the London Resort. We also form part of the wider DEFRA group, which includes our partner organisations: • Natural England • Environment Agency • Marine Management Organisation Our partners above will also be submitting individual relevant representations, but we speak with one voice within the DEFRA group. The Forestry Commission’s main points regarding this application are as follows: This project will result in the direct loss of trees and woodland. There is also the risk of indirect impact upon woodlands (including ancient woodlands and SSSI woodlands) adjacent to the project boundary through air pollution from the increase in vehicular traffic to the area which may be generated by this attraction. This is particularly pertinent to the area as it is in close proximity to another proposed NSIP, the Lower Thames Crossing, which will also affect the levels of traffic in the area. We would also expect to see inclusion of how this project will affect, be affected by, and otherwise interact with the Lower Thames Crossing project. The consultation documents have mentioned off-site mitigation for habitat loss which will arise from this project’s construction. However, although we have been advised that the area will be ‘significant’, we have received no further details or consultation about the mitigation area, other than there will be woodland created. We will not be able to progress a Statement of Common Ground without details of what this site will contain, species mix, how it will be implemented, and its long-term management. We do not feel enough information has been presented by the applicant as to their proposed habitat creations actions, both in terms of processes in creation and management, and also which parts are mitigation for lost habitat, which are serving as carbon offsetting, and which will be potential net gain. We have been informed by the Resort’s contracted arboricultural consultant that the Resort intend for the operational phase of the resort to be carbon neutral, with the potential for some net gain. We would be keen to see more detail on how this will be achieved. As mentioned, the detail we have seen has been limited, and has raised concerns about mitigations which have been proposed. For example, within the landscape strategy document, the landscape strategy section regarding tree planting talked about planning ‘predominantly native’ species, and then headed their brief list with Turkey Oak, which is both non-native and a known invasive tree species. Since our response to the statutory consultation, and the acceptance of the scheme for Examination, we are aware that the majority of the landholding for this project has since been designated by Natural England as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). We are concerned that what has been proposed by the applicant may no longer be acceptable in the light of this new designation, and that the applicant, the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State should take this into account. We and our partners within the DEFRA group would be pleased to assist in any re-evaluation work which may be required. Overall, we are somewhat disappointed at the minimal amount of engagement we have had with the London Resort. We are concerned at the minimal level of detail within the application, which is well below what we would expect of documents submitted for Examination. We also question whether there is enough time within the Examination timetable to resolve the issues which we and our partner organisations have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoffrey Kitchener
"I write to request that the London Resort Project’s NSIP submission be rejected, as fundamentally flawed. It is predicated on the basis that the site is not an SSSI, and the Project downplays its evaluation of the site’s biological interest accordingly. The notification by Natural England of the SSSI takes immediate effect, even though there is a consultation process running until July, and so it is necessary to treat it as an SSSI, which the NSIP submission is defective in not doing. The special biological interest of this site should now be regarded as of national importance. The remarkable invertebrate list noted by Natural England in its reasons for SSSI designation includes an extraordinary range of national rare and scarce (even Critically Endangered) bees, wasps, spiders and beetles. The bird list given in those reasons is also remarkable, including bearded tit, marsh harrier and water rail. The flora is even more important than indicated by the Natural England reasons, which mention four species Vulnerable to the risk of extinction in Great Britain. I am especially aware of the flora, being the county recorder for the Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, and the chair of the Kent Botanical Recording Group. It is clear from the Project’s environmental assessment that their 2020 survey was made at the wrong time of year to assess the presence of Sickle clover and (Vulnerable to the risk of extinction) Slender hare’s-ear. Vulnerable round-leaved wintergreen is also a much larger population than their survey found. The assessment as a whole underplays the value of the extraordinary floral (and indeed, wildlife generally) diversity of this site, the open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. The wildlife value of the site is not compatible with the NSIP as proposed and it is now clear that the Swanscombe peninsula is a national wildlife asset which should be safe-guarded. This is no longer (if it ever was) the right place for a theme park. If the London Resort Project were to be regarded as ‘national’ infrastructure, it should be on non-SSSI land and would be far more appropriately cast as part of the national levelling up to benefit the north and midlands, not the already prosperous south east."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gill Stubbs
"Everyone knows the significance and importance of the Swanscombe Peninsular as a rare place where wildlife thrive. I can confirm that. I have been going there, with my binoculars in hand, for several years and I never cease to to wonder at the way nature has so quickly and thoroughly reclaimed a place that was abandoned. The variety of habitat and species is staggering and a delight to behold. So much to see in such a small area. What a treasure! My son and his family live locally and I often walk along the riverside with my grand daughters to explore. They have a great time e.g. climbing and scrambling about, making see saws from driftwood etc . Testing and challenging themselves while having fun. Soon we will be going there to spot marsh frogs. We return home happy and wiser. They measure what a good time they have had by how dirty they are! An fantastic antidote to the pressures of modern life We keep being told how important it is for children to re connect with the natural world. What a rare opportunity to develop a place for all to enjoy nature at it's best and have authentic experiences in an area which is becoming increasingly built over. A place for education and play where everything and everyone can thrive. An inclusive place that everyone can afford and won't overload the already over stretched local infrastructure. I'm just an ordinary person so I hope you won't disregard my comments if I have said the wrong sort of thing for this forum."
Members of the Public/Businesses
ian woodward
"I would like to discuss the points of : 1. Excess vehicle movement and traffic issues in the area from project contractors right up to and including of customers after the finished project 2. Excessive pollution from vehicles in the area from beginning of projects from contractors right up to abs including of customers after the finished project"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julian Cheyne
"Swanscombe Marshes are situated on a promontory out on their own with little human habitation nearby making it an excellent place to preserve. The only human sites nearby are industrial so it retains a separate identity. On the other side of the River Thames Rainham Marshes have been very sensible protected. This seems to be an excellent opportunity to provide a similar site on the south side of the river. Claims are often made that a development will improve bio-diversity, as is claimed with this project.  The reality is development will bring destruction of the existing habitat and wider impacts in the neighbouring area. Replacement with new plantation takes years, even decades to achieve anything similar. Simpler, cheaper and more effective by far, if it is intended to improve a site ecologically, is to let nature do the work without any unnecessary development. Swanscombe is a mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. Whilst developers often cite brownfield sites as preferable to Green Belt sites for development, in this case the fact the site is ‘brownfield’ is in many ways misleading since it has developed as a critically important habitat for many species. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest which recognises its unique value. I have to ask what is the point of a national authority of this kind making such a designation if it is just going to be overridden when a developer declares an interest. Natural England's designation reinforces that fact Swanscombe Marshes are host to 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. This is a site of national significance. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance, which should far outweigh its worth as a local recreational destination. Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. Additionally, it also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. We are in a climate emergency. Protecting natural sites like this and encouraging bio-diversity are very much a part of combating this emergency. We will also be emerging from the covid emergency. We have come to see how important wild open spaces are to our mental health. This site is already available to provide this kind of space. Leaving it alone is the best course of action."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Michael Johncock
"1.I lived in Swanscombe entirely during the first 23 years of my life. At that time Swanscombe had two main natural amenities, the magnificent woods immediately to the south and the marshes on the peninsula to the north. Sadly, the woods have been totally destroyed to make way for development. They were well known for a wide range of butterfly species and mammals. The marshes were primarily known for its birldlife and unusual flowers. It would be an environmental diasaster, having lost the woodland, if the marshes were also to be lost to new development in the form of an amusement park. I will expand upon my experiences of the marshes both as a child and as an adult and subsequent visits since moving to nearby Gravesend. 2, I also outline that I will give details of the immense pleasure that being in the natural world can bring and how the wide range of species on the peninsula can assist well being in people. 3. I will examine and refute the claim by the applicant's CEO that the proposed development can somehow result in a "net gain" for biodiversity, given that it has been accepted as having one of the most important densities of species anywhere in England within its various open mosaic habitats. How would this be possible? 4. I will question whether this application should ever have been selected to be a NSIP, being unlike other projects accepted as such. 5. Swansconbe Peninsula has long been recognised as a site where rare birds can be found. The well known broadcaster and ornithologist Bill Oddie, writing in his Little Black Bird Book published in 1980, included it in one of the few essential places to visit in the whole of England in a dream birdwatching weekend. I will give further details when required."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Lee
"I do not live in the area but I have studied the issue and am aware that this peninsular is of significant value to a rich diversity of wildlife. It is a natural theme park, free of charge, supporting a rich environment for all to enjoy. I would point out that the proposed resort and theme park would have been closed during the pandemic, a useless facility. This natural wonder is open all year round, 24/7, providing well-being for many for free and it makes no sense to destroy it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Rutledge
"I believe by building this London Resort will result in the ecology of the area will be lost. There are some very important creatures that live there and survive and thrive in that area. We also will get even more pollution in this area which is already high and dangerous to the residents that live here. The small businesses in the area will obviously have to go which some of which have been there for years. The noise of the construction I’m sure will unacceptable and the movement of lorries etc will put extreme pressure on a already busy area. Then of course the amount of traffic daily that will be coming into the area which cannot cope at the best of times is very worrying. My main concern is for a beautiful piece of land with diverse nature living there and secondly pollution with the amount of cars travelling to and from. These are the reasons I’m objecting to the London Resort being built."
Local Authorities
London Borough of Bexley
"The Council supports the proposed resort development in principle, considering that it will represent a major investment in the sub region, offering significant economic development opportunities for local residents and businesses as well as a hugely enhanced leisure and recreational offer. The Council is keen that these economic development opportunities are maximised and that the benefits extend beyond the immediate area of the development. As a result it is important that the developer consider how best to: - align with and appropriately support skills and training initiatives in the sub region to ensure residents have clear pathways to retrain and upskill so as to access the new employment opportunities - take advantage of and liaise with recruitment schemes and services in the wider sub region so as to maximise the reach of recruitment campaigns and ensure proper access for all those in need of employment - provide appropriate business support for local businesses who may wish to seek to contribute to the resorts supply chain in sectors such as construction, catering, leisure, entertainment, ICT and hospitality - Make appropriate linkages with sub regional education institutions to maximise the potential for work experience, internships and similar initiatives, particularly with regard to the Mayor's construction academy and performance colleges such as Rose Bruford and Bird College."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Max Aaron
"This development will boost the economy, provide thousands of new jobs as well as put Britain on the world stage entertainment wise. London has been in need of a top tier entertainment resort to ensure that it can compete with the likes of Paris with Disneyland."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Hayward
"Last few days! Please object to the beautiful Swanscombe Peninsula being turned into a theme park by the 31st March. Please click ‘I am completing this form for myself to give my own personal views’ & submit a short comment (around 500 words) in support of this Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and its wonderful wildlife. I have sent the following to: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/projects/south-east/the-london-resort/?ipcsection=relreps We do not need another gaudy, noisy theme park in the UK - especially on a newly designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Swanscombe Peninsula needs to be protected. By maintaining this thriving and accessible slice of nature, we will continue to benefit from the physical and mental benefits its existence brings. This Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL) has transformed into a natural wonder. It supports a particularly varied range of rare and scarce species; from the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider to the perilously declining (by 90%) nightingale. A brief study carried out by the London Paramount Entertainment Resort showed that they share the Peninsula with 14 other bird species categorised as red, and 14 categorised as amber in terms of conservation concern. 3 invertebrates categorised as RDB1 (endangered) and 8 more as RDB2 (Vulnerable); including 2 beloved bee species (Andrena nigrospina and Andrena niveata). 30 more are considered rare! Please see: https://cdn.buglife.org.uk/2021/02/Swanscombe-SSSI-rationale-Feb-2021.pdf The endangered man orchid has also made a home here; as have 4 vulnerable plant species (yellow vetchling, bithynian vetch, slender hare's-ear and divided sedge. If this is just what the planning applicant found, then this amazing tally is likely to be an underestimate. It is not just these species that are rare, but the very land itself, sitting as it does in the highly developed Thames estuary. In 2019, data showed that 25% of all children living in Dartford were living in poverty (https://www.kentlive.news/news/kent-news/areas-kent-highest-number-children-2875594). Since the pandemic this is highly likely to have increased. The vast majority of these families are unlikely to have access to a garden. They are also unlikely to have spare money to visit a theme park. It is therefore down to the council to maintain nature-friendly ecosystems that can help improve health by encouraging exercise and provide a respite from hectic city life by inspiring an interest in the natural world - all without costing money. Please reject this planning application. The vast majority of these amazing species will be driven out of the area if planning permission is given and the SSSI certification ignored. We must save this amazing area for current and future generations of humans and non-humans alike. We must stop the decline in wildlife; especially within cities - not bulldoze it for the sake of an expensive day trip."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ronald Dodge
"I am in support of the park happening beacuse it's something the county of Kent needs and they are trying there best to make sure the wildlife is protected in the local area as a person who loves theme parks I definitely think this is a great thing to happen to the UK post the pandemic and It should give people something to looks forward to It's once in a lifetime opportunity to have something like this which will boost the economy and bring money into the government and the amount of people the park will bring to the local area and Kent will be amazing ."
Other Statutory Consultees
Southern Water
"SWS is the statutory sewerage undertaker for the area of the proposed development. SWS has apparatus and interests in the land which is the subject of the proposed application. The applicant will need to obtain copies of SWS’s records to ascertain the full extent of the plant affected, assets/easements in proximity to the proposed works along with their approximate grid references. After assessment of the site Southern Water have determined that the Swanscombe and Northfleet Wastewater Treatment Works are located within the proposed development site. A precautionary buffer zone distance of 500 metres from the perimeter fence of the WWTW has been used for the purposes of this planning consultation response. Due to the potential odour nuisance from a Wastewater Treatment Works, no habitable development should be located within the 1.5 OdU odour contour of the WWTW. An Odour survey will need to be carried out to a specification agreed with Southern Water to identify and agree the 1.5 OdU contour. Southern Water requires existing access arrangements to Wastewater Treatment Works to be maintained with regards to unhindered 24 hour / 7 days a week access. Southern Water operates a closed gate policy during maintenance works for Health and Safety reasons. The proposed development would lie within a Source Protection Zone around one of Southern Water's public water supply sources as defined under the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection Policy. Southern Water will rely on your consultations with the Environment Agency to ensure the protection of the public water supply source. Alongside the advice regarding the protection of our assets we have also carried out initial capacity checks for water and wastewater. These have indicated a lack of capacity in our current infrastructure within the catchment. To mitigate this would require strategic investment in our water and wastewater networks and treatment works to accommodate the requirements of this development. As the development has not been adopted in the relevant authorities local plan, no provision has been made in Southern Waters Investment plan for AMP7 which covers the period April 2020 to March 2025. Significant investment would be required and would need to be promoted for delivery in AMP8 (April 2025 to March 2030) and it is likely this could not be delivered until March 2030 at the earliest."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Buckingham
"The plants and associated insects, birds and wildlife that have developed over the years on Swanscombe Peninsula represent an immensely valuable asset as evidenced by Natural England’s recommendation of SSSI status and as such the site requires full protection from development. Without doubt the NSIP submission must be reviewed. Open mosaic habitat on previously developed land (OMHPDL) at Swanscombe provides a major refuge for many species of plants whose habitats elsewhere continue to decline due to development and agriculture and nitrogen enrichment. Thirteen nationally scarce vascular plant species have been recorded there including Man Orchid, listed Endangered and Yellow Vetchling, Vulnerable. Both are species which require warmth and open nutrient-poor soils. These conditions are freely provided at Swanscombe and they allow vegetation to maintain itself at pioneer or early succession stage. Coastal species at Swanscombe include scarce and Vulnerable Slender Hare’s-ear and Bithynian Vetch. Round-leaved Wintergreen which is very scarce in Kent occurs on a shaded chalk embankment. The mixture of habitats and the presence of impressive numbers of plants, invertebrates, breeding birds, reptiles and mammals of conservation concern surely constitute all that is required for the area to receive complete protection from development of any kind. Covid 19 and lockdowns appear to have increased public awareness of the value of open space, and the presence of wildlife. It is my opinion that the benefits to be gained by the general public by having Swanscombe Peninsula protected as a remarkably diverse example of Thames Estuary habitat far outweigh any that a theme park might offer. Sue Buckingham, BSBI co-recorder for VC15(East Kent)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Hodgson
"The area is not suitable for parking, pollution threat to health"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Thompson
"The UK’s and the global insect population has decreased catastrophically since the 1970s, and we need to start taking this decline seriously as our crops systems rely on healthy numbers of insects to act as pollinators. We need desperately to preserve insect rich habitats to prevent any further decline. Swanscombe contains several unique habitats that Natural England have recommended be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, particularly due to the range, as well as rareness of the insect and birdlife that live there. It also currently provides local people with valuable, freely accessible green spaces that are recognised to be important for physical and mental health, which have shown to been particularly important for under the lockdowns. The proposed resort will destroy considerable areas of the site during construction and reduce the valuable habitats which will inevitably result in their degradation and reduction in rare species. Enclosing and building on Swanscombe will reduce the accessibility to local people to the area, particularly those on low incomes, by charging what is likely to be a significant entry fee. I am also left unclear as to why another crass, overpriced, large resort is needed in the UK, or why the London area needs more tourist attractions. Given the likely reduction in overseas visitors in the near to medium term this looks increasingly like a vanity project that risks becoming a white elephant if built. Although it purports to be sustainable, the materials needed to construct anything on the proposed scale will be considerable, requiring huge amounts of concrete and steel which are carbon, energy and water intensive. Current planning laws also enable developers to water down any environmental measures after planning permission has been granted to improve their profits, which would leave the site even less protected if the resort is allowed to progress. I urge you to stop the destruction of Swanscombe marshes from going ahead and prevent this giant mistake of a resort being built, to preserve the area for insects and the local people to enjoy peacefully and for free."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Shephard
"I live some miles upstream from this former collection of quays wharves etc which has re-wilded over the last many years to become a haven for wildlife. Although it is designated as a brownfield site its is now populated by a rich and varied community of animals and plants, including nationally rare species many of which are are listed on recent surveys by Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife. Natural England is considering its submission as an SSSI in recognition of rare and notable plant and invertebrate species. It accommodates a remarkable assemblage of overwintering bird species, as well as breeding species recorded by Kent Wildlife trust in recent surveys. Wildlife corridors provide an essential component of successful conservation management and these marshes are just such a provision for dispersal of riparian and marshland species both upstream and downstream. The proposed development would break this chain doing harm to the species currently there, and also restricting movement and dispersal across the site. Further, the local community and visitors from further afield, who value the area as it is now would be deprived of a wonderful and precious wild landscape and its associated flora and fauna. only a short distance from London's urban environment. Over the last year of covid 19 restrictions, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of wildlife and biodiversity, not only for the ecological health of our environment but also for human wellbeing and in particular mental health. With the uncertainty of how long current restrictions will remain, and whether further varients will force restrictions to again be reimposed, such wild spaces are essential, rather than crowded theme parks which may well, once again have to be closed to limit infections."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Wright
"Dear Sir, I have been bird watching and recording birds at Swanscombe marshes and the adjacent areas in question since 1988. During this time over 150 species of birds recorded and historically since records started 200 bird species . There has been a pair of Marsh Harrier successfully nesting in Black Duck marsh for more than five years, the birds feeding in the adjacent ditches and fields . Cetti’s Warbler breed in a wide variety of habitat across the peninsula with all singing males recorded in BirdTrack. Grasshopper Warblers that require low scrub and Reed edge number 5 to ten pairs each year. Nightingales currently have two or three territories on the site , these individuals return each year to the same area all within the area of proposed development alongside Grasshopper Warbler, Whitethroat, Lesser Whitethroat, Linnet. Peregrines are on territory at the pylons and hunt the peninsula for food. Short eared, Barn and Long eared Owl are all in the area. Long eared owl had a roost this winter of six birds, a pair of which is still on site and vocalising ahead of breeding . The occupy the same tree that a pair used in 1998 and other years. This territory also falls within the proposed development area. Little ringed Plover were present last year and may have bred, along with Skylark, Meadow Pipit, and numerous warblers. The black duck marsh area currently has breeding Pochard, Bearded Tits, Water Rail, a heronry and the Marsh Harriers . The mud and shoreline allow wintering Jack Snipe, Snipe, Turnstone, Dunlin, other waders and Water Pipit a safe undisturbed winter home . This winter has seen nearly a thousand ducks wintering on the marshes, thousands of thrushes feeding, wintering Dartford Warblers and Lapwings. In the presence of the development in its current or any form will bring about the removal and extinction of all these species with a quiet, safe, undisturbed breeding or wintering grounds. The mosaic of habitats at this site allows such a high diversity, it can not simply be moved or replaced . The resort will be the death knoll of biodiversity at the site in all its forms and a short term financial gain at local biodiversity loss. We have to live with any development forever , the wildlife can’t be replaced or increased and is an incorrect statement put forward by the developers . As a SSSI it’s irreplaceable"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Keith Murray Consultants Ltd on behalf of Britannia Refined Metals Ltd
"Britannia Refined Metals Ltd ('BRM') is the owner and occupier of Plots [] in the Order. In addition to seeking the permanent acquisition of one of these identified Plots the Order seeks rights over other Plots primarily, as was identified in the public webinar held as part of the statutory consultation between 27 July and 21 September 2020, to make the land to be acquired more accessible to the general public, whilst leaving BRM, being the owner of the private road by which access to the land in question is gained by the general public, liable for both the upkeep of the private road and consequently with a duty of carte to the general public that will be encouraged to use it. BRM therefore asks that the Order be amended to require the permanent acquisition of all Plots identified as owned by BRM. A fully detailed Written Representation will be lodged prior to 31 March 2021."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Bromley Biodiversity Partnership
"In view of the fact that the Swanscombe Peninsula has now been designated a SSSI, members of Bromley Biodiversity Partnership request that the proposed development of this site as a London Resort Theme Park Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) is reviewed because information previously submitted obviously does not take into account its new SSSI status: it is no longer ‘just a brownfield site’ but has now been recognised for what it really is, an important wildlife rich site important not just locally but also a nationally important asset. The drastic decline in biodiversity highlighted in the State of Nature Report 2019 makes it more than ever important that the SSSIs are protected. Concerns are as follows: • Swanscombe has now been recognised as of SSSI status because of the nationally important habitats it supports, the UK BAP Priority Habitats: Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land, coastal habitats, grasslands, wetlands and also scrub. If these are lost to development so too are the plants and animals which currently live on the site some of which are rare and endangered. These include: o 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species, including 5 red-listed species eg,Man Orchid. Divided Sedge and Slender Hare’s Ear. o More than 1,700 invertebrate species, including over a quarter of the UK’s water beetle species and 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern o the Critically Endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider (Attulus distinguendus), only found in one other UK site. o a regionally important breeding bird assemblage including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance,- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. o A population of Red Listed (Vulnerable) Water Vole & Dormouse o important populations of reptiles and Otter. o An important area for bats with 9 species recorded including the Nationally Rare Barbastelle As one of the last remaining brownfield sites in the Thames Estuary without an extant planning permission Swanscombe Peninsula is incredibly important. Its size means that it will support a many times greater diversity of wildlife than the small fragmented areas which remain when mitigation for development has previously occurred. The drastic decline in biodiversity highlighted in the State of Nature Report 2019 makes it more than ever important that areas so rich in biodiversity as this are protected not just for wildlife but also for people so that they can access nature- shown by the recent pandemic to have been so important for people. It is an inappropriate site for a Theme Park. In addition, the rich biodiversity demonstrated in Swanscombe Peninsula’s recent designation helps as a buffer against climate change through sequestering and storing carbon within plants and animals and in the soil. The destruction of this site will cause huge biodiversity and carbon losses in addition to the enormous carbon losses involved in construction and access. How can this possibly considered in an area with poor access to nature at a time of climate crisis?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Sandell
"Please, please, please do not destroy yet another important environment for wildlife species, already squeezed to near extinction. If we continue to develop and build upon wild spaces it will be too late to save them. Insects are of particular importance in the food chain - for humans too! Without bees there will be no crops! By doing this, you will be responsible for the decimation of so many vitally important species. Please reconsider and stop this development. Thank you for your time"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Bowling
"I am a resident of [] which it appears is hugely under threat by different apparent national infrastructure projects .LTC ,Thurrock power ,Tilbury 2 ,D.p.world ,The fact that the new "free port' status has been granted and what that will bring to thurrock .Combined the detrimental effects cumulatively will be immense .Unfortunately for residents each application is considered on an individual basis and not as a cumulative factor on things such as noise ,air and light pollution. This glorified money making amusement Park is NOT national important infrastructure by any means and combined with other developments is just another nail in the coffin of green and clean thurrock . I object on the grounds that the area around the proposed car parks in tilbury do not have sufficient feeder road networks and indeed those that exist have pinch point areas of gridlock which will mean a traffic nightmare on our side of the river .Unless you run a curfew traffic and noise will increase in the area to the direct detriment of local residents .with proposed thousands more visitors where is the " extra health and emergency services capacity " coming from .we have already seen with our local unitary council that they are financially driven with no concern over the residents whatsoever ..There has to my knowledge as a member of the local neighbourhood welcom forum been NO consultation with local residents this side of the Thames..I am assuming that these supe car parks will be lit have cctv have electric charging points available ,rest room ,toilet facilities ,help points with human assistance possible at least one d3fibrilator due to foot fall ,local fire fighting facilities and if you increase even more disruptions to the flood plain even more drainage ditches to reroute water to the Thames. Recently published flood maps suggest strongly that your car parks could be very soon more like a sea life centre than a car park .whilst I am obviously against it for my nimby reasons as we are being enveloped by development .I am also up for reasonable and rationale dialogue to evidence your mitigating factors .can I remind you talking to.the council is NOT talking to the residents ,my evidence to you on this is with the LTC project where LTC wish to exploit and successfully deliver it"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Donna Zimmer
"I vehemently oppose London Resort’s plans to build a Theme Park across Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI for the following reasons: 1) Wildlife, Biodiversity & Green Space - As a local wildlife enthusiast I cannot emphasis enough how important this site is not only to the wildlife it attracts due to its exceptional unique habitat but also to the people who use this green space regularly. Swanscombe Peninsula in Kent is one of my favourite green spaces. It’s an urban wilderness with an outstanding variety of habitats that attracts some very special species. This includes a wide diversity of invertebrate species, including over 250 species of conservation concern and is of national importance, ranking with our best invertebrate brownfield sites. And it is one of just two places in the UK for the critically endangered distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), among the host of rare bees, beetles, moths, and other invertebrates recorded there. Alongside the invertebrates, the site also attracts a wonderful variety of birds to this most urban location: everything from marsh harriers, grasshopper warblers, cuckoos and shovelers in the wetlands and reedbeds, nightingales in the scrub, a heronry in the woodlands, and black redstarts among the old buildings. Natural England has recently designated the Swanscombe Peninsula as SSSI status in recognition of the the rare habitats & species found on site. Building a Theme Park over an SSSI is unthinkable, in no way does this form part of the Government’s green recovery instead it would allow a dangerous precedent. 2) Traffic & Pollution - As a local I am aware of the traffic congestion in our area. It only takes one car accident over the Dartford Bridge during rush hour to gridlock our local roads. I have often been caught in stationary traffic on the A2 from as far back as Bexleyheath due to such accidents which is 4 junctions before the proposed turn off and before the extra traffic! Our roads here cannot take more traffic. More traffic creates pollution too which is damaging to health to all of us especially as Dartford is already one of the most polluted areas in the country. 3) The consultation questionnaire was bias to the developers from the beginning. Since when did the general public become qualified to judge whether an application offered good biodiversity? The figures taken from this questionnaire was then quoted by the BBC as well as other media making it appear that the public was on side with the developer"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Hodgkinson
"This is a very important habitat with similar areas disappearing around the country. We must protect such areas for future generations to enjoy and also to maintain biodiversity. The loss of of 250 invertebrate species and rich plant life on this site is not sustainable and not in keeping with government policy to encourage wildlife and mitigate climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Moore
"The Swanscombe marshes are a vital part of mine and my children's life. Being able to walk and look for different species enables my children, our next generation and the generation after that the beauty of this earth. Building a monstrosity contributing to pollution and destroying the ability of our future generations to appreciate natural habitat of living creatures."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Herring
"I live within a stones throw of the proposed development and am aware of the already over development of this area, the relentless traffic issues, the highest levels of pollution in the country, and the other infrastructure projects already agreed which we have little say in. As someone who has mobility issues, Swanscombe peninsula is one of the few areas in walking distance where I can escape to some tranquillity. The variety of habitats make every walk different, including the huge variety of wildlife creating a unique ecosystem only available here and in Thurrock, which is also affected by this project. So much so that it is designated an SSSI. This past year has demonstrated the value of nature on health and well-being and has been the saviour of many people. To think of it being transformed into an area I can see from my window into a vast playground, emitting light, sound and further pollution for the rest of my life is unbearable. Nothing I have seen from the planning documents eases my concerns. The ‘consultation’ of this particular version of the proposal, has not been one people could attend in person due to Covid, and that seems wrong given the impact on people, existing jobs, the wildlife, and informing those affected about the disruption over the next few years should it be built, and the impact in the future on our existing public transport links, the roads, and lives in general. We live in a tiny oasis, which includes the peninsula and neighbours of it, nor wildlife will benefit from this abomination, sold on misinformation and unprovable statements about the potential benefits we will gain."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Macdonald
"I live in [], in close proximity to where the London Resort is proposed to be built. There are so many reasons why this development should not be allowed to happen in this location. Greenhithe is a small, attractive, relatively quiet village which is a lovely place to live. Many green spaces surrounding the village have already been lost to housing and shopping developments. As a result of this, the surrounding roads are grid-locked several times a day, making it near impossible at times to get anywhere by road. Dartford Bridge is also frequently gridlocked. A theme park would undoubtedly make this traffic congestion much worse. In addition to the roads, the local trains are already too busy. How on earth can it be proposed to make the small, two-platform Greenhithe station the main public transport hub for the resort? The trains are already packed and over-crowded. I understand it is proposed that buses will take park visitors to it through Ingress Park, another currently tranquil, pleasant place to live and walk. The extra people and buses flooding through will ruin it with noise, pollution and likely litter if people decide to walk through. This is not to mention the overall pollution issues in the general area. One of the worst for pollution in the country already. This should not be worsened by more traffic and large, unnecessary building developments. The actual site being proposed for the resort surely could not be less suitable. It is a designated Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), confirming it as one of our country’s best wildlife sites. It is home to a magnificent array of flora, fauna, birds, insects and animals who will lose their homes if it is built on. It is marshland, acting as a natural flood defence for the area. If it were to be built on, there is no telling how the numerous homes in close proximity, including mine, could be affected by river flooding in future. It is a beautiful place to walk, run and cycle, which are things I do and enjoy there frequently. The last year has shown how so important the Peninsula is for the mental and physical health of local people. We need green spaces like this nearby to enjoy, relax and exercise on. The site is located right next to a large, very pleasant and expensive housing development. We do not want the lovely environment we pay so much to live in and enjoy ruined by this proposed monstrosity. Care and preservation of the environment is a hot topic which the Government claims to be fully invested in. How can it even contemplate destroying this beautiful SSSI for this? This is not to mention the local business owners who are going to be driven out. If anything, please develop the peninsula into a more structured, accessible national park for visitors to enjoy the open air and natural world. A theme park on Swanscombe Peninsula is one of the most ridiculous notions I have ever heard. We don't need it and we don't want it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jacqueline Nicholls
"Swanscombe Peninsular is an important area for wildlife and should be protected The peninsular is a very important place for the residents of the area for recreation, exercise, to experience the wild life and to enjoy peace and tranquility. The resort would cause even more traffic to the existing grid,icked roads."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Storey
"Britain's wildlife is in serious decline in the UK and there is much evidence to show this is the case. Habitat loss is a driving factor behind this. Many insect species that are considered common are dwindling in number due to general habitat degradation, and rarer species that live in specialised habitats are particularly under threat from habitat loss. We do not have an infinite supply of these special habitats, many of which have, for various reasons, been lost over the years. They are not places that can be conjured up overnight, once they are gone they are lost to us for ever, taking their wildness and their wildlife with them. Their existance matters deeply to me. I want such places to exist for future generations. Swanscombe Marshes is a fine example of a specialised habitat. It needs protecting and celebrating for all the wildlife, both common and rare, that thrives there. I believe there is general agreement that losing such places is a bad thing, that biodiversity loss needs to be reversed but this needs to be acted upon. Clear signals showing that such places are valued and matter to our society set the tone for how we proceed in the future. Allowing the theme park development to go ahead would give exactly the opposite signal. I have enjoyed visits to theme parks myself and am not against them but the Swanscombe area is not the place for such a development. Strong and consistent messages showing wildlife and wild places are important to us need to be made. The pandemic has brought this closer into focus for us than ever before."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Peeling
"Swanscombe peninsula needs to left in its rewilded state, without development. The peninsula is the last bastion for some unique species, a haven for wildlife, a significant area for breeding birds, including cuckoo, marsh harrier and many other wading birds and water fowl. It is a carbon sink for the area, a much used green space to escape the noise and pollution of the highly developed surroundings. Development would fracture the ecosystem from top to bottom and reduce the biodiversity of North Kent significantly. I ask that the area, now with its SSSI status, should never be considered for any sort of development and its uniqueness be left as such for future generations and for the sake of its fauna and flora."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Smith
"I am writing to support the designation of Swanscombe Marshes as a SSSI site. I live locally in Northfleet next to Swanscombe and a designated wildlife protection area will be wonderful for local people. This is the only wild nature space left locally, everything else has been built on. We need this area for our well being aswell as protecting the environment. Also, for our young people, who have no other wild nature place they can visit locally. Swanscombe is home to many endangered invertebrates such as spiders, bees, beetles etc and to many breeding birds. This makes it such an important place for nature and for local people to be able to visit."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Griffiths
"I live a stone's throw away from Swanscombe marshes. A major reason for choosing to live where I am was the wonderful array of wildlife that inhabits this former collection of quays wharves etc. Although it is a brownfield site its is now populated by a rich and varied community of animals and plants, including nationally rare species many of which are are listed on recent surveys by Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife. Over the last year of covid 19 restrictions, there has been an increasing recognition of the importance of wildlife and biodiversity. Not only for the ecological health of our environment but also for human wellbeing and in particular mental health. It would, quite honestly, be a travesty with this current recognition to degrade and destroy these rich and diverse habitats and associated communities. Please Please rethink your plans for this naturally rich and irreplaceable area of land which is a treasure for the local community and in the wider contex of animal sustanability."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Wanless
"I strongly support the proposed development of a theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. I believe that the development will bring employment and numerous positive aspects to the area of Dartford and Gravesend."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Fox
"I desperately care for the environment and all wildlife. Having a theme park will pollute the air in many ways, carbon monoxide, noise etc and not to mention the killing of all creatures that are also required for the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sandip Ahluwalia
"I strongly believe this project should be approved as it will create many direct and indirect jobs, improve the services and infrastructure around the local area, make a big positive economical impact to the UK, enhance the local protected wildlife and natural green spaces around the proposed site so that more people can easily access and enjoy it, and provide a world class theme park resort that we currently don't have in the UK."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Lings
"For the attention of the Planning Inspectorate Dear Sir(s), I wish to lodge an objection and to strongly oppose this ill thought out proposal and ask the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to refuse and reject the proposed application plans by London Resort Company Holdings (LRCH) for development of a London Resort Theme Park at: Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI between Gravesend and Dartford. The application should ‘NOT’ be granted a Development Consent Order (DOC). The development is completely disproportionate to the site and its scale would be catastrophic for this valuable Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) of National importance. The wildlife riches of the site would not survive this development. The UK is already one of the most nature depleted countries in the world and there has been a sudden and continued sharp decline in the UK’s biological diversity. The theme park will permanently destroy 1,245 Acres (504 hectares) of priority habitat which forms a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. LRCH has used outdated environmental assessments and has misrepresented the description of the site, referring to it as mainly post-industrial and largely derelict. This is not the case anymore, in just 20 years, the site has been utterly transformed into one of the most important sites for wildlife in the UK, and apart from the unique and nationally important flora and fauna; there are around 280 existing parties including businesses and landowners who would be affected. We need to start putting nature at the heart of all our decisions, before the losses are fundamentally irreversible. Swanscombe peninsula is more than a brownfield site it is a Nationally Significant Wildlife Infrastructure; a sanctuary that is a symbol of hope: a former industrial site that is now a world-famous natural rewilding, home to some of the rarest and most endangered birds and invertebrates in the UK, a place from which we may actually start to make a big difference to the recovery of the UK’s biological diversity, instead of paying lip-service to our promises. The Open mosaic habitats on previously developed land (OMHPDL) are now a priority habitat themselves [UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) as a Priority Habitat listed on Section 41 of the National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) ] and consist of a patchwork of bare, previously disturbed ground and stands of vegetation. Although OMHPDL is associated with brownfield sites, only a small proportion of brownfield sites actually support good examples of this priority habitat. Swanscombe Peninsula is such a place and why Natural England recently designated it a SSSI. This biodiversity hotspot one of the new “urban rainforests” has for a long-time been greatly underestimated. With all that we now know about Swanscombe Peninsula this really is a test case that will reveal how seriously the government is taking landscape and biodiversity recovery. We’ve got to act now to save the last little remnants of established unique priority habitats, that can actually rebuild our network of nature again, or it’s gone forever. To allow this blatant land grab by LRHC would be totally unacceptable and nothing less than the UK Government being complicit in allowing LRCH to commit ecocide through the destruction of the Swanscombe Peninsula’s open mosaic habitats by deliberate and negligent human action. We must stop destroying valuable biodiversity and their habitats and value its very existence over impactful monetary pursuits and its long-term consequences. Intergenerational environmental impacts including pollution and loss of biodiversity will burden future generations. Surely the UK Government is committed to the overarching aim of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policy on biodiversity to: minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity, contributing to the Government’s commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological networks that are more resilient to current and future pressures. Or, the Governments; 25 Year Environment Plan committing to: creating or restoring 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat outside the protected site network; focusing on priority habitats and developing a Nature Recovery Network (NRN). The Swanscombe Peninsula surely lies at the heart of such a network within the Thames Estuary. There are numerous objections to this proposal, even the surveys conducted for and on behalf of the proposing developer LRCH recognised that the proposed site was of National importance for its invertebrate populations identifying 1,992 terrestrial species, plus a further 200 aquatic macro-invertebrates of which 250 are of conservation concern, i.e. Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce. Also of note is a marine invertebrate, the scarce lagoon worm (Alkmaria romijni) found in very few places and a protected species under the Marine Conservation Zone approval granted for the area in 2019. As an experienced field naturalist I believe that this is an underestimate of the invertebrate assemblage that is yet to be discovered on the site. The most obvious objection to this development relates to the build and the threat that would bring: the building of two theme park gates and a water park, a conference & convention centre and e-Sports facility; a hotel with 3,500 rooms, two ferry terminals (exactly where the lagoon worm lives) – one each side of the River Thames along with back-of-house facilities, a visitor centre and a new road from the A2. It also claims to be a world-leading sustainable development – this in itself would make a mockery to the meaning as it would put hundreds of at risk and critically endangered species at threat of local and national extinction. Threats to Swanscombe Peninsula 1. This development has the potential to cause direct damage to the natural environment from the impact of development practices through the removal of habitat, fragmentation of habitats and loss of wildlife corridors. Even relatively minor development practices, will impact on protected species which may occupy those spaces. 2. Less well understood is indirect disturbance and cumulative impacts which can result from the increase in visitor numbers and intensification of recreational use of a wildlife site. Indirect disturbances can range from short-term to long-term events with permanent effects, examples include: • Impact from increased visitation to the site and threats of introduced species; • Damage to habitats through human activities: walking, cycling, fires, fly-tipping, litter, dog fouling etc; • Damage from track spreading, causing erosion or the crushing of plants and invertebrates; • Disturbance of wildlife during construction through noise and vibration; • Predation of domestic cats upon wildlife such as nesting birds and water vole; • Recreational disturbance of sensitive fauna, particularly by dog walkers; • Siltation of water bodies / courses from run-off; • Pollution of water from new commercial and industrial discharges; • Air pollution from additional traffic, business etc for example their effect on lichens; • Threat on sensitive habitats from the escape of invasive exotic garden and aquatic plants, such as American skunk cabbage; • Disturbance of nocturnal fauna through the use of artificial lighting; • Visual disturbance and mortality from pedestrians and on-site vehicles; and • Mortality caused by increased traffic or new roads. Due to their sensitivity and importance even development located at a distance can have a negative impact on a SSSI and especially one as important as Swanscombe Peninsula. 3. The highest level of legal and policy protection should be given and afforded to Swanscombe Peninsula which forms a dramatic landscape with distinctive geology, flora and fauna which are of international and national conservation importance and support robust protection to this biological diverse asset which must be upheld in future policy from any opportunistic developments. This development goes against all National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (NPPF) Paragraphs 170 to 183, recognising wider benefits of ecosystem services, protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and minimising impacts on biodiversity. I would also state that this development would undermine the purpose of any and all of the following: 1. Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC 2006) 2. Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (CRoW Act) as in the increasing measures for the management and protection of SSSI’s 3. Flood and Water Management Act 2010 4. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, as amended 5. Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Habitat Regulations) 6. European Landscape Convention (The UK ratified this international treaty aimed at the protection of all valued landscapes and established the need to recognise this in law) 7. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats 8. Convention on Biological Diversity (As of 2015 the UK along with 196 other countries ratified this global agreement to achieve conservation, restoration and protection of biological diversity. The strategy is implemented by the UK biodiversity Framework 9. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (to halt the loss of biodiversity) 10. Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (Enhance protection for the aquatic environment) 11. Birds Directive 2009/147/EC 12. EU Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC 13. UK BAP Species and habitats of principle importance 14. UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) as a Priority Habitat listed on Section41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (NERC Act) Conclusion Either the UK Government believes in upholding the overall combination of local policy or legislative frame works that afford Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) a high level of protection commensurate with their status or they do not. What is the purpose of any protective legislation and signed treaties if at the end of the day Monetary Capital can always bulldoze and concrete over Natural Capital under the disguise of Sustainable development or National Infrastructure? Swanscombe Peninsula should be seen as a beacon of light. A cornerstone of the UK’s nature conservation policy and recognised as part of an important ecological network of protected areas. They should be safeguarded against ill conceived and potentially devastating developments as that proposed by LRCH. It would be a wilful violation to not protect biodiversity. Development must not come at the expense nor threaten other species’ survival. Therefore the most practicable action to safeguard our green fringes from incremental assaults from speculative development is for the Rt Hon Robert Jenrick MP Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government; to refuse and reject this planning proposal for a theme park on the Swanscombe Peninsula. I earnestly implore you to reject the London Resort Company Holdings development plan outright. Yours Faithfully Mr. Stephen Lings"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Brown
"We are in the middle of a climate and ecological emergency. A report by WWF in 2020 concluded that 68% of wildlife has disappeared since 1970 due to human activity. Our irreplaeable wild areas are constantly being destroyed to make way for our insatiable appetite for wealth and growth. This cannot continue indefinitely. We rely on nature to provide the air we breathe and the food we eat yet it seems that it is always considered expendable. In this case the area has recently been designated a Site of Special Scientific Interest due to its significant biodiversity and is home to some critically endangered species. Development of this site could very easily cause an extinction event. I note that the London Resort claims to be sustainable. This is blatantly not true. The loss of the marshland is a loss of carbon capturing habitat, the carbon footprint of the materials and energy required to develop this is not considered nor the additional carbon emissions created from the many thousands of additional car journeys that will be made daily. This project is not and never will be carbon neutral. It isn't necessary for our own survival, we've lived without it so far and we'll manage just fine without it. We have attractions and entertainment available already and it isn’t as if these are fully utilised. The area already has significant traffic problems and appalling air pollution. This development will significantly exacerbate these problems to the detriment of locals."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Thames Gateway Tramlink Ltd
"Representation for the planning application of The London Resort (LRCH) Planning Inspectorate Reference: BC080001 Submission by Thames Gateway Tramlink Ltd (KenEx) 27 March 2021 Thames Gateway Tramlink Ltd (TGT) welcomes the proposed investment in the construction of a new World Class theme park for the UK to be built on the Swanscombe peninsula, and recognises the benefits of increased employment prospects within the geographic area affected by high levels of deprivation and with few large centres of work opportunities. This area of the Thames Estuary, including North Kent and South Essex, would benefit greatly from the opportunities arising from the proposal. TGT examined how this proposal works within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in the scheme’s approach to achieving sustainable development and promoting environmentally sustainable transport, and we propose the following points: 1. Integrated sustainable transport options (including cross river) should be properly identified, assessed and considered, including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects of the development, and for net environmental gains. The following will result in a positive impact which would help LRCH to comply with NPPF but which are not properly identified within their application: • Ebbsfleet Southern Rail Link (within Kent County Council and Network Rail strategies) • KenEx cross river tram (Outline Business Case with DfT). 2. We are aware of the proposed SSSI status of the LRCH development area. Importantly, the reduction of the land take required by cars (e.g. road space and car parking allocation) and particulate pollution from road vehicles are more significant within the SSSI. An environmentally sound answer to the LRCH application would be the KenEx tramway and rail solutions generally. 3. The proposal to utilise Greenhithe station for connection with the North Kent Rail Line rather than Swanscombe station is very disruptive to local residents. The use of Greenhithe station results in significant numbers of late night buses going through residential areas. By using Swanscombe station as a connection node much nearer to the London Resort entrance these issues can be avoided. 4. The use of ferries from Tilbury as a major form of access has not been properly thought through for the following reasons: • Reliance is still placed on car dependency at Tilbury with the associated land loss for parking and particulate pollution from road vehicles. • There would be navigational issues with the existing river traffic. The London Resort application needs to follow the NPPF which includes: “opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated.” “opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued.” Thames Gateway Tramlink welcomes the opportunity to further engage with LRCH to assist with the planning and construction of an integrated sustainable transport system for London Resort and the surrounding area. The TGT transport plan covers both sides of the Thames Estuary. Working in partnership with other public transport agencies we provide a comprehensive transport solution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Watling
"I wish to object to the London Theme part, proposed to be built on Swanscombe marsh. The marsh provides a variety of habitats that support a highly diverse fauna and flora. The brown field areas provide habitats which have been colonised by now rare species of invertebrates, ie. spiders, beetles. The site supports a range of declining bird species including nightingales, swift’s & black redstarts as well many others. The site has recently been designated an SSSI for its more than 250 invertebrates of conservation concern, 15 red listed birds, 13 plants & reptiles (fabulous group of animals). The site borders the Thames adding more biodiversity. The government has spoken about a ‘greener future’ & bringing back nature, this proposal flys in the face of this aspiration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Alfred Alford Nicholls
"I reside directly opposite the boundary of the proposed London Resort. I am concerned how this will affect my health at the age of 87. It will cause noise, light and traffic pollution. I am extremely concerned about the importance of the wildlife in the area and the rare breeds of spiders and vertebrae whose habitat will be disturbed. The peninsular is an important area for local residents for health, recreation and wellbeing. If this proposed development should go ahead it would be devastating for the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Furness
"Re. Swanscombe Marshes I am a member of Buglife. I have not visited Swanscombe Marshes. I live a long way from Swanscombe Marshes in the[] bordering Wales. I farm land where I work to reverse the long term loss of biodiversity from intensive sheep grazing. Any plan, such as the one to build on Swanscombe Marshes will destroy the habitat. No mitigation plan will make up for the loss of habitat that supports the extraordinary diversity of species on the Marshes. I believe, given the dire warnings of climate catastrophe and at a time of crisis in Nature with huge contractions in numbers and diversity of living forms, it is imperative to protect gems such as Swanscombe Marshes. I am 74 years old with little time left. We must value the treasures of life forms (about which we know so little) however insignificant they appear to our eyes. Please refuse this planning application. Anthony Furness"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Seeger
"As a Thurrock borough Candidate for the forthcoming election, I plan to study the effects negative and beneficial to my ward with regards to infrastructure provisions and the effect construction will have on the residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Hoggarth
"My representation is in opposition to the London Resort (ref BC080001) on the Swanscombe Peninsula. I lived in [] for many years and still visit the Swanscombe Peninsula regularly. I am also very familiar with the current congestion and pollution problems that an overabundance of traffic is causing in the area. Therefore, my representation covers two concerns, the loss of wildlife habitat in the south-east and the damage (both from a physical and mental health) that is being perpetuated by the continuing over development of the areas, especially those around the Swanscombe Peninsula. Swanscombe Peninsula boast a huge array of wildlife, much of which is currently under threat due to our relentless need to concrete over our country. During this difficult year, green space and more importantly areas that support wildlife, have been a refuge and sanctuary for many. Engaging with nature, either physically or virtually, has helped many people to cope with the challenges of COVID-19. Especially, in this area of the South-East where so many of our wildlife spaces have been lost or are under threat, saving the Swanscombe Peninsula for future generations to experience is a must. I would also question whether a resort is something the public will need or want after the last year? As the country adjusts to life with or after COVID, is a resort really a top priority? Even if you are not swayed by the plight of the wildlife or concerned about the viability of an old-fashioned resort. Please take a moment to consider the current traffic situation in this area of the South-East. I would also invite you to attempt a journey either by car or rail when COVID restrictions are lifted. To say the area is overburdened with traffic is something of an understatement. I cannot imagine how it will cope with the addition of a resort. I would imagine that the pollution, caused by the extra traffic, would push the area way above the safe levels. Please consider what our country needs now; does it really need more traffic, stress and pollution or does it need an area of SSSI and natural beauty that we can all be proud of and learn from. Thank you for your time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Rachael O
"I am concerned about the development of Swanscombe Marshes. Wetland habitat is disappearing at an alarming rate globally. Since 1900, the world has been estimated to have lost up to 71% of its wetlands. (Source - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266388496_How_much_wetland_has_the_world_lost_Long-term_and_recent_trends_in_global_wetland_area) As a wetland, Swanscombe contains a variety of different organisms, including species that are critically endangered (The distinguished jumping spider). These could be adversely affected by the development of this site. I believe that wildlife deserves to be protected and cherished. The fact that such an unusual animal is present on site should be celebrated. I ask you to take this into consideration as to whether this is a site that should be developed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ciaran McDonagh
"Traffic congestion and pollution is of great concern to me and my family. I can see this development greatly effecting my quality of life and the health of my family. Thurrock is one of the most polluted parts of the country currently and this development would greatly exacerbate the situation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
D Clark
"I am registering my concerns at the impact of the London Resort on local and national ecosystems and wildlife. Myself and my children have walked the peninsula a number of times, it's a great place to walk and completely different to any other environments in the local area. We love the feeling of being out in the wilderness so close to home, the mix of wildlife and industry, ecosystems like marshland and beeches alongside fields and trees feels. It's unique. We also often visit the Isle of Grain which is just further along the Estuary and the number of migratory birds that visit all along this coastline is special to the UK. Not only will this development completely destroy the local ecosystem it will have a huge impact on other ecosystems in the area which in turn has a negative impact on UK wildlife as a whole."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Rayment
"Natural England declared Swanscombe to be a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost. It is site to many endangered species, including the critically endangered distinguished jumping spider, and is a diverse and wonderful landscape. Wildlife is in decline across the country, it's important to protect it where we can. Myself, and many other people gain tremendous pleasure from walking in this area, it's a little oasis in an, otherwise, polluted and crowded area. This area is amongst the worst in the country for air pollution, if not the worst, I don't believe it's a good idea to bring, potentially, thousands of extra vehicles into the area every day. I am not against the London Resort, I just believe that this is completely the wrong area to build it on, I believe we will lose significantly more than we can ever hope to gain if this goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Denise Hiscock
"Concerns over pollution, traffic congestion and the area being SSSI."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Clark
"I feel very strongly that this area is the wrong place for the theme park. Its indigenous wildlife depend on the unspoilt marshland, which cannot be replicated anywhere else. Still in the middle of a global pandemic, we need to protect these spaces for our nations mental wellbeing. It is widely known that being out in nature, in green spaces, improves mental health. It would be an irreplaceable loss to those that live in the area (I am local myself)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Byrne
"As a member of the RSPCA Inspectorate for over 20 years I have seen the surrounding area grow in both housing and industry/retail and the impact that this has had on biodiversity in the region. All SSI sites are unimaginably important, but those in the south east, are increasingly under pressure from our never ending expansion. I have seen the number of species decline and those that have maintained have been squeezed into fewer and fewer isolated pockets, limiting the genetic diversity of each. We simply cannot afford to loose this site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgia Harley
"I am writing to submit my personal views as to why I am opposed to building the London resort on the swanscombe marshes. Swanscombe is a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history.Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest- we must protect our most important wildlife sites from being lost.It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. Swanscombe is home to nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance.Its rich breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance- including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart.13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid.It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and otter The Swanscombe Peninsula is simply the wrong place for a theme park- we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. It would also cause even more pollution, congestion and traffic in an area on the UK which is already one of the most congested in the uk. It will cause a huge negative impact on local infrastructures, affecting our health and wellbeing. We have very few sites so important to wildlife,, I love to walk and enjoy and respect this precious area, to be able to walk and enjoy this, it is not acceptable to be building anything on this site. Wildlife is under serious threat in the uk buy distruction of their environment, we need to preserve these precious sites for nature and for the people who use this to be a le to support mental health and well being of the community, Please be remembered for stopping this development and not for destroying rare and precious wildlife and causing even more pollution and congestion to an already congested urban area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jamie Taylor
"Great for economy Great for jobs Great for tourism Great for people of the UK"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Kitson
"Additional traffic build up in relation to local roads and the effect on the Lower Thames Crossing project which has modelled on less traffic."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Guy
"I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC BUILDING UP IN TILBURY FOR THOSE USING THE CAR PARK."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jenny Harris
"Swanscombe Peninsula has one of the rarest habitats in Britain, a mosaic of wetlands, grassland features, coastal habitats and scrub, a complex mosaic that supports an unusual diversity of rare species not found in other habitats. There used to be many such sites along the Thames Estuary, developed from their complex human history. The range of invertebrates found here is of national importance for species of Conservation Concern, including the Critically Endangered distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus). Swanscombe also provides breeding sites for 15 red-listed birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance and many rare plants too. Wildlife across our country is in serious decline so the protection of these rare habitats and species assemblages through our network of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) is more important than ever. The size and diversity of this site makes it almost unique and it biodiversity exceeds that of most other similar sites, with its significant importance in the Thames Estuary. Although Swanscombe's rare habitats were created by man's past activities, it is now an almost unique wild place for our precious wildlife. Now that it has become a SSSI it is essential that the application for a theme park be re-submitted, so that the full extent of its national importance for wildlife and need for protection can be recognized."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Howes
"Dear Sir. Please protect the endangered wildlife and plants existing on the Swanscombe Peninsula by not building a theme park on it, preserving a little bit of England and respecting the wishes of the local people who need a field for their mental health and wellbeing . A recent photo from The Port of London Authority showed the Swanscombe Peninsula and the land extending out towards London. The only suggestion in that view of " a country lane" and " a cottage small beside a field of grain" was the Swanscombe Peninsula. I am asking you to leave it as a nature reserve. Yours sincerely, John Howes"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jon Akisanmi
"1. Long-lasting boost to the local economy, jobs, homes and general wellbeing. 2. Upgrade to local amenities and increased local development. 3. Harmoniously managed wildlife, costs & benefits conservation legacy. 4. Greater local prestige with increased tourism. 5. Infrastructural development and improved use of existing infrastructure."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katie Lynch
"1) Biodiversity The Peninsula is a SSSI covering 264.1ha, recognising its biodiversity and irreplaceable mosaic of habitats. The Development would cause: - Permanent loss of approximately 100ha of SSSI; - significant harm to additional areas of the SSSI during construction; - damage to retained terrestrial and marine habitat due to fragmentation, noise, light pollution and increased human activity. The principal mitigation strategy to provide off-site habitat compensation is inadequate. ‘Net gain’ cannot mitigate damage to SSSIs (Environment Bill). Moreover, the diversity and richness of the habitat mosaic mean loss of such scale cannot be compensated. The Promoter contends without the Development 2)Local communities The local area is highly urbanised and undergoing rapid further development. The Peninsula is a vital resource for recreation, bird watching, naturalism and education, contributing to the health and wellbeing of communities (both existing and planned) as recognised in the SSSI designation. The local loss of nature and urbanisation reported in the ES is contrary to the the 25 Year Environment Plan and the Dartford Core Strategy. Off-site habitat compensation is proposed in a remote part of Swale, over 30 minutes’ drive away and inaccessible by public transport. This will not compensate for the adverse effects on local communities due to the environmental impacts described. c. Socio-economic Thousands of existing jobs are risked in"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Barford
"I urge the Planning Inspectorate to decline permission for the London Resort Theme Park to be built on the Swanscombe Peninsula. Natural England say the site warrants an SSSI designation. It is one of the UK's best wildlife sites and is a unique habitat. It is home to 250 invertebrates including the critically endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider, 15 red listed birds of conservation concern and 12 of principal importance including Marsh Harriers, Bearded Tits and Nightingales. It is also home to many reptiles, bats, water voles and otters and valuable and rare plants including the Man Orchid. At a time when the World is facing a climate emergency & when so many valuable wildlife habitats are being destroyed across the UK by major infra infrastructure projects such as HS2 and EWR & with the beautiful Minsmere Nature Reserve under threat from Sizewell C it is vitally important the Swanscombe Peninsula is protected & saved. The wildlife which lives on the Peninsula is far more important & valuable than a theme park. This development should be sited on a brown field site elsewhere where it can be easily accessed by public transport and bring economic growth to an urban area in need of regeneration. The Peninsula is completely the wrong location for it. Please do the right thing and save this precious wildlife haven for future generations to enjoy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
May Webber
"I am concerned by this development. Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding range of wildlife and we must protect it. Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest for its incredible diversity of flora and fauna and therefore this site is simply not the right place for a theme park. Moreover, sites like Swanscombe Peninsula are vital in helping to mitigate the impacts of human driven climate change and we must value our precious wildlife more than we do a theme park. The CV-19 pandemic has shown us how crucial green spaces such as Swanscombe Peninsula are for our mental health and wellbeing, and for many it has been a lifeline, including myself. Seeing this site lost to a theme park would be devastating for our generation and future generations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Ward
"My family live in [] close to the Swanscombe pennisula. It is a special place for us to appreciate its unique beauty and the nature within it. In an area quarried and environmentally damaged from a past era, this oasis provides escape, fresh air and an appreciation of the many endangered species important to our heritage and an understanding of its beauty. It is a unique and special place and hope it remains so as one of the last marsh lands in existence here. Many endangered species of rare invertebrates,flora and fauna reside. The peninsula provides the last remaining health benefits to the environment and to humans living close by. The building of a theme park right here, in this particular spot, will destroy this special environment, destroy air quality, destroy the feeling of community and provide unnecessary congestion to our already chaotic road system. It would excelerate and promote the consumption culture of our society when it needs to be reined in and addressed and encourage a more caring society with greener initiatives and a greener economy . We owe it to future generations to wake up, listen and look after our planet which is deteriorating at a rapid rate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miranda Serafini
"This makes me so sad.. I live in[] and the traffic is already backed up every morning. It can take an hour half to do 5 miles to work. There is all this talk of saving the planet and needing green spaces but yet you want to ruin this beautiful space home to many species of animals! It makes no sense none of it! Traffic, environmental or location or wise!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Norris
"To examine the effect on the property and area I live in. To check on effect on wildlife especially protected species. What will be the effect on local road inferstructue. Will there be an effect on pollution including noise and light."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Yetman
"I oppose the building of the London Resort on the Swanscombe Peninsula for the reasons summarised below. 1. Swanscombe Marshes is an important site for the precious wildlife that depend upon it as recognised by the recent declaration from Natural England that it should be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) 2. Swanscombe Marshes is a local gem of a green space - if we have learned anything from the last year's lockdown it is the importance and value of nature that is accessible to the local community. It a place for local families to go walking, enjoying the sights, sounds and smells of nature. Personally, it has been my haven during the past year to connect with nature. 3. The proposal is in the wrong place! The area is already heavily congested with traffic and adding 10,000s of visitors per day will only make traffic and resulting pollution worse - the local area already reported days when pollution from traffic well exceeds WHO limits* 4. The Theme park's proposal to provide a 'net biodiversity gain' is simply wrong / misleading - this is a richly diverse area that cannot simply be 'moved' elsewhere 5. Wildlife is threatened across the country, (for example see 'State of Nature' report by the RSPB and other partners in the UK) and it is more important than ever that we save our precious natural sites. Swanscombe Peninsula is such a site that must be saved. *A 2018 study using satellite imagery revealed that the area around Bluewater and Dareth Valley Hospital has the most polluted air in Britain with 23 mg of pollutants per cubic metre of air, more than double the WHO guideline of 10mg."
Members of the Public/Businesses
R Priestley
"I am writing to state that I am totally against these frivolous plans for destroying precious wildlife and habitats for the unwanted, damaging and unnecessary theme park on Swanscombe Marshes. Please do however ensure it gets SSSI status and covenants to prevent this being sneaked through in future. It must be protected forever. It is a special place for all kinds of wildlife, some endangered, and for people to come and enjoy nature. Please do not give in to these people who want it destroyed. We have quite enough destruction going on with HS2 to last most peoples' lifetimes. Please listen to local people who use this area for peaceful walks and say NO to the ruin of this place. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
R. J. Heckford
"I object to the planning application. We do not need another leisure and entertainment resort for humans. We need to preserve habitats for other species as it is their home. In the case of the site of the planning application it is the home of 250 invertebrate species of Conservation concern as well as many other species of Conservation concern, such as various birds and plants. Such a high number of species of Conservation concern make it an outstanding habitat. Of the invertebrates there are three species of RDB 1 Status, one of RDB 2 Status and 17 of RDB3 Status. These three statuses are defined as follows: Red Data Book category 1 (RDB 1) – Endangered species whose numbers have been reduced to a critical level or whose habitats have been so dramatically reduced that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction. Red Data Book category 2 (RDB 2) – Vulnerable species likely to move into the endangered category in the near future if the causal factors continue operating. Red Data Book category 3 (RDB 3) – Rare species with small populations in Great Britain that are not at present endangered or vulnerable but are at risk. To these I can add a moth (Lepidoptera) that has no vernacular name, only a scientific name: Bryotropha dryadella. I found this at Swanscombe in 2001. It has a pRDB2 Status meaning that for the period 1980 – 2011 it was only known to occur in 6 – 10 10km squares in Great Britain. The record from Swanscombe in 2001 is the first and as far as I am aware the only Kent record. I also found the species at Grays, Essex in the same year in a very similar habitat. Again, as far as I am aware that is the only Essex record. The species is otherwise only known in Great Britain from a few sites in Cornwall and Devon. I am not aware of any records after 2011 that would increase the number of 10km squares from which it is known. In a European context it is at its most northern edge of its range in Cornwall, Devon, Kent and Essex. Otherwise it has a central and southern European distribution. The recent notification of the Swanscombe Peninsula as a Site of Special Scientific Interest shows what an exceptionally important area this is for wildlife. Their interests should prevail over human leisure activities. I urge that this and all the other species that live in the Swanscombe Peninsula be allowed to continue their existence there by the rejection of this planning application. To have such a special habitat should be something to celebrate and be proud of, not something to destroy. In any event, I cannot see how this application can proceed as a result of SSSI notification, which took immediate effect on 11 March 2021. Surely this application should either be withdrawn or dismissed now?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scott Seacombe
"Environmental impact. Traffic and travel impact, parking, congestion, pollution. Health impact, during construction and operation of the resort, to residents in the surrounding areas. Travel connections and infrastructure provision."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sonia Hurren
"Guilt.... Strong word but it’s a word so many of us would feel if we didn’t make our feeling known. Having worked with local young people getting them into employment I truly understand how the resort would be a huge economic opportunity for this area however I’m not able to justify in any way shape or form is destroying a habitat and a eco system of such a rare and beautiful piece of our planet that is the home to so many species. We have to stick up for these creatures, this space and our environment. So much of our area has been destroyed for housing why do we have to kill more just to make money!! There will be other jobs and opportunities for young people but there will not be another Swanscombe peninsula. My heart breaks at the thought of this area being killed I so enjoy it’s beauty. Please accept this objection with the strength of love and heart that our area deserves"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Sholund
"Although I don't live in Swanscombe, I have heard a lot about the development of the area into a valuable area for wildlife. This is so important in this time of climate emergency. All the science tells us that we need to be rapidly re-wilding in order to at least make a start in overcoming the huge imbalance between built areas and areas of habitat and biodiversity. This development could be built somewhere else, if indeed it is necessary to build it anywhere. Important habitat is not always beautiful and park-like. It can be rough and scrubby, untidy, and unattractive to some people. That doesn't negate its importance to many forms of wildlife, who are also important to the quality of our future. This area is historically a brownfield site, but it has become a habitat site, so important that Natural England want to make it a Site of Special Scientific Interest. We can learn from areas like this where nature has begun to take back land which was once taken from it. And they are absolutely essential in the battle to turn back the climate emergency."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cathy Sisterson
"I’m very concerned about the climate and ecological crisis that the world is facing, and I think that such a valuable natural habitat should be retained. A theme park is really not appropriate use of the land, and there are no environmental mitigations that would retain the rich habitat there is now."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Heap
"As a resident in [] who lives on the[] I currently enjoy an excellent vies of this peninsula. I am concerned that this development would change this view of a lovely wildlife setting. In addition I am concerned that there would be noise and light pollution from the development. With the prevailing winds coming from this direction I expect that the noise could be significant. Finally given all of the above concerns I am concerned that this will have a material impact on my property value."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Hawkins
"I am concerned that this development, despite its economic advantages in these challenging times, will ultimately be placed on the wrong side of history. We are heading, via climate change and other factors, towards an environmental crisis and to bulldoze a haven for wildlife at such a time will surely seem wreckless and laughable when future historians are studying our generation’s actions (and inaction). Thank you for considering this perspective. I am local to the area and I hope that something good can come of this consultation process. I do want progress and opportunity but not at the expense of life."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Environmental Action Coney Hall (EACH) (Environmental Action Coney Hall (EACH))
"At a time when people have at long last woken up to the tragedy and dire consequences of the destruction of the natural world, it is inconceivable to us that it would be deemed appropriate to turn an important mosaic habitat into a theme park. If such a development were allowed it would stand as a metaphor for our short sighted, wanton behaviour. Wildlife across the country is in drastic decline on a national scale and so it is more important than ever to protect our SSSI network. Local groups such as ours are working hard all of over the country to preserve and promote biodiversity on a local level in order to change local behaviour and persuade councils to protect our natural environment. At a time when many organisations and enlightened councils are rewilding land, you are considering the destruction of a precious resource which you should be preserving and which you could use for the public good. From my reading, I am aware that the site supports a number of invertebrates, 250 of which are on the critically endangered list. The regular breeding birds include red listed birds and others of principal importance including March Harriers, bearded tits, Nightingales and Black Redstarts. There are rare plants such a man orchids and populations of reptiles, bats water voles and otters. We must act as stewards and protect our precious wildlife sites from being concreted over. We welcome the news that Natural England has recommended that Swanscombe be declared a Site of special Scientific Interest and as a result of this news, we feel it is essential that the application be resubmitted. Although the SSSI is now subject to consultation, there is a statutory duty for it to be considered as a SSSI until the end of this process in July. We hear the justification that such a project will generate much needed employment but we need to think differently. We cannot keep choosing short term gain over long term survival. There is evidence now to show that there is employment and money to be generated in the green economy. Human beings have rediscovered nature and the understanding that we are part of nature. We have also seen the benefits to mental and physical health that nature brings to us. The future generation deserves better. We need nature reserves not pleasure parks. It is time to set an example. Please do not allow this theme park, this travesty to go ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Folorunso Golding
"I love the Great Outdoors . I moved to Northfleet , 18 months ago , thinking that i would have to travel to Dartford Heath or Shorne Woods for greenery . well , I was amazed to find this large area which includes a little beach , a lake , an interesting area where boats are moored and a river walk to Greenhithe . it is a hidden gem , sadly not advertised or well signposted like other areas. We need open spaces like Swanscombe marshes , as we are encouraged to exercise and spend time in nature for our mental well being . I love to cycle , jog and walk in the area a few times a week . A Theme Park will create mayhem . so please do not allow it to happen"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Simms
"Swanscombe supports nationally important Open mosaic habitat on previously developed land, coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the site’s complex human history. It is an inappropriate site for a theme park. The site supports a nationally important assemblage of invertebrates, including 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. The site’s diverse breeding bird assemblage includes 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid. It also has locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. There are fewer and fewer sites left for nature. Lockdowns have given people a new understanding and appreciation of our natural surroundings and their importance to ourselves through biodiversity and for our own mental wellbeing. The destruction of this site would be yet another nail in the coffin for nature and in the long term, human life as we know it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Gardiner
"Having followed the project developments since 2012 which has been a interesting had its ups and downs but feel it's going in a better direction. Looking at the documents and plans this project has many benefits for Dartford/ Gravesend, Kent and the UK, will create jobs during construction and operating which is a crucial due to coronavirus situation, will add to the economy in these difficult times and challenging times, better green public transport better infrastructure, improved public access for walking and cycling, wildlife taken into consideration, green generation, using River Thames for transportation of construction and supply. Supporting local businesses and supply chains and wider around the UK. I fully support this project has many benefits in so many ways."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kayla Dodd
"This site is an important nature area. Too many of our green spaces particularly sling the Thames Estuary have been redeveloped. This is vital for the migratory birds and should be a protected as London’s newest SSSI. Please carefully consider the catastrophic environmental consequences at a time when we would be protecting our declining numbers of birds and the insects that are co-dependant."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Kent Fire and Rescue Service
"The Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue Authority (KMFRA) understands that the proposed plan for the resort includes a range of event spaces, themed rides and attractions, entertainment venues, theatres and cinemas developed in two phases, known as Gate One and Gate Two. In addition there will be four hotels, a combined conference and convention centre, up to 500 dwellings for resort staff. KMFRA makes no specific comment on the general concept of a leisure and entertainment resort as set out in the proposed plan. It is the view of KMFRA that we are only able to make comment in areas that overlap with our statutory duties. Consequently, at this point we have no specific objections to the proposal as presented. Any objections that we may choose to raise in the future will be based on careful consideration of the material presented the developers and will be made within the context of our obligations under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, and the County of Kent Act 1981. At this early stage we will offer the general observation that, given the proposed size and scale of this resort, it will present a significant increase in our risk profile. This will require the development of response plans for the site which are proportionate to the risk of fire and fire spread, technical and water rescue and possibly medical response. The level of risk – which, in general terms, may be considered as a function of the size and scale of the resort – also means that KMFRA will need to ensure that these response plans are adequately resourced. As a result, we are of the reasonably held view that the presence of this resort will require a significant additional resource commitment for KMFRA in order to ensure that the response plans can be adequately resourced. Finally, we would also offer the view that any development will need to consider the proposed legislation set out in the forthcoming Building and Fire Safety Bills along with amendments to the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Price
"I only discovered the area of Swanscombe Marshes, between Greenhithe and Botany Marsh recently, during the Covid pandemic. As an amateur photographer I've found it an amazing area to explore with a unique blend of habitat and wildlife, including many rare and endangered species of birds, plants and insects. As well as the Photography aspect, being able to access a peaceful area and getting close to nature is good for my mental wellbeing and general happiness. To take this away in area which is already surrounded by concrete would be a shame, both for the Flora and Fauna which inhabitat the area, as well as the visitors who seek an escape from the hustle and bustle all around. This is not an industrial site by any stretch of the imagination and in times of better environmental awareness it would be unbelievable to read havoc with Balldozers upon important plants, reptiles, habitat, birds etc. Thank you for hearing me out."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc in relation to the London Resort Project (“the Project”) National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (“NGET”) wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits must be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on NGET’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area. The following assets, which form an essential part of the electricity transmission and gas networks in England and Wales are within, or in close proximity to, the Order limits: Overhead Lines • ZR 400kV Overhead Line • YN 400kV Overhead Line • YL 400kV Overhead Line Substations • Northfleet East 400kV Substation • Northfleet East 132kV Substation • Associated 132kV cable Other Apparatus Above and below ground associated apparatus including underground electricity, fibre and pilot cables. NGET is specifically concerned about the potential interaction between its existing operational substations and other assets and the physical works for which Development Consent is sought by the Promoter and the compulsory acquisition powers intended to relate to the same. This includes the likely interaction (in several locations) between the proposed highway infrastructure and existing pylons which are integral to the functioning of the Overhead Lines noted above. Generally, NGET would request that the Promoter engage with NGET at the earliest opportunity to provide explanation and reassurances as to how the Promoter’s works pursuant to the Order (if made) will ensure protection for those NGET assets which will remain in situ, along with facilitating all future access and other rights as are necessary to allow NGET to properly discharge its statutory obligations. NGET will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET will liaise with the Promoter in relation to the protective provisions for inclusion within the DCO, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. National Grid will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. NGET reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will negotiate with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Northfleet Central CIO
"Our interests, as a charity which has been created to further the needs of the residents and community of Northfleet, are: The effect of the resort (and the construction phase) on the local infrastructure, roads etc. The need to ensure that opportunities are given to local residents for employment. The effect of increased worker population on schools, surgeries, etc."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Oliver
"Swanscombe Peninsula is a haven for wildlife and a peaceful place to get away from today's hectic world. I am an artist and I have used the area as inspiration for a lot of my recent work. I intend to be painting outdoors at the marshes as much as possible once the Covid-19 restrictions are lifted. Please, please consider the environmental damage that will be caused with the construction of a theme park in the area. The amount of traffic that will be attracted during construction and from visitors will have a huge impact on the surrounding towns and roads. And therefore produce far more air pollution than is already present."
Parish Councils
Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council
"Swanscombe and Greenhithe Town Council would like to submit the following representations regarding the proposed London Resort, Swanscombe Peninsula, Kent. The Town Council welcomes both the wealth generation opportunity for this part of North Kent, and also the job creation both during the construction phase and in resort operation, as long as these jobs remain local. The Town Council has serious concerns regarding the impact on the local transport network that the resort will bring both in increased traffic and parking. Although the dedicated route from the A2 will, to an extent, assist to minimise traffic, local roads will undoubtedly still be used and effected. As parking is proposed to be chargeable visitors will seek other options such as the opportunity to park off residential roads within neighbouring communities and utilise the walking route to the site. Emphasis has been placed on the promotion and use of both Greenhithe and Northfleet train stations. This has been to avoid the cost to update and upgrade Swanscombe Station to the required standard of accessibility. This station, although not intended to be promoted by London Resort, is by far the closest and sits just 50 metres from the walking entrance to the resort and will therefore be utilised by the users, and employees, of the resort. The use of Greenhithe station would vastly increase the amount of bus/shuttle journeys which would in turn not only change the character of Ingress Park but would also affect how other services elsewhere in the borough are dispersed. The Town Council has serious concerns about the impact the development has on the open mosaic habitat from previously developed land contained within the site, and about how the wildlife and green spaces will be managed and remain freely accessible to the public. Liaison with the local community is key to the successful delivery of this scheme and the formation of a residents’ discount will work to actively promote a good relationship. The plans provided for the site show buildings that would appear to greatly overlook both local neighbouring buildings and impose on visitors to the wider town of Swanscombe and Greenhithe. These include the car park located adjacent to Galley Hill Road, the back-office sites located to the rear of both Stanhope Road and Swanscombe High Street. The back-office area for Gate 2 is located close to the residential development of Ingress Park, with direct vehicle access located close to the junction of the housing development itself. Some of the landscaping proposed in this area impacts on the delivery of much needed community buildings. The proposed 500 units for staff accommodation will greatly impact on local infrastructure. No provision has been made for the additional demand this population will have on existing recreation and medical facilities in the area. The Town Council feel that there is insufficient information supplied at this stage by the developer to assure that every step will be taken to mitigate the impact of the resort on the existing community. The basis for this report is taken from the 2012 site assessment, which is out of date with local demands. The construction phase has concerned members, both with the potential noise generated (comparisons have been drawn with the new warehouse building being built along the river), and the construction traffic. We are aware that it is proposed that the river will be used for this, but that this is not guaranteed. Mention has also been made of using access roads from Swanscombe High Street to bring plant and lorries onto the quarry behind. This road is not suitable for this type of vehicles and another route would need to be considered. A lack of consideration has been given to the relocation of the businesses already located on site. This is both from the perspective of a loss/relocation of local jobs, but also where these businesses will be relocated and the impact, they will have given the types of industries in place. The Town Council would like to see details of what sort of jobs will be available at the resort and where will the people who fills these jobs be brought in from? The Town Council would like to see far more detail of what is involved with a project of this magnitude and finds that this is not currently provided by the developer for example, phasing details do not appear to be included which would mean there is nothing in place that obligates the developer to do X before they do Y etc."
Non-Statutory Organisations
David Lock Associates on behalf of Swanscombe Development LLP
"Swanscombe Development LLP is the freehold owner of significant extents of land at Swanscombe Peninsula and upon which the London Resort is proposed to be developed. The LLP has entered into an option agreement with London Resort Company Holdings Limited which will allow it to acquire from the LLP land necessary to deliver the London Resort. The LLP acknowledges receipt of the statutory S.56 notice which, as landowner, confers upon the LLP the status of interested party. The LLP supports the application. The London Resort provides for comprehensive regeneration of land at Swanscombe Peninsula and its environs. In doing so: 1. It will provide significant direct and indirect economic benefits at local, regional and national scales in an area of existing economic deprivation. 2. It will provide effective re-use of previously developed post-industrial land delivering on long-standing planning policy ambitions advocating the redevelopment of the Swanscombe Peninsula. 3. It will address existing geo-environmental considerations as relate to ground conditions and contamination. 4. It comprehensively addresses biodiversity and ecological matters including the ability to deliver an overall biodiversity net gain allied to appropriate and comprehensive ecological mitigation. 5. It is supported by investment in necessary infrastructure to serve the development, particularly in relation to transport. In the LLP’s view, the proposals provide an unparalleled opportunity to secure a step-change in economic development in this part of north Kent. The Peninsula has been consistently identified in local and regional planning policy as an opportunity site – an ambition to which the London Resort proposal positively responds. The proposal will deliver significant economic benefits in the short-term and long-term, including job creation during construction and operation, supply chain benefits and indirect and ongoing benefits through induced effects. The proposal comprehensively addresses the ecological, environmental and geotechnical considerations which arise on the Peninsula and provides an appropriate and long-term solution. Taken together, the benefits of the proposed development are considerable, and in the LLP’s view, should be granted consent. The LLP welcomes the opportunity to engage in the Examination process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Riddle
"Overview There are 2 incontrovertible reasons why the proposal for the “London Theme Park” on the Swanscombe Peninsula should be rejected. The first, is the unique importance of the Swanscombe Nature Reserve, and the second is that the proposed development will negate any attempts by the UN and our government to tackle the interlinked crises of (i) reducing climate change, (ii) reversing the global loss of biodiversity, and (iii) controlling this pandemic and future ones. The unique importance of the Swanscombe Nature Reserve Swanscombe Marshes Nature Reserve has now (Mar 29th, 2021) been designated a “Site of Special Scientific Interest” (SSSI) by English Nature in recognition of the tight mosaic of diverse habitats, including coastal wetland and the impressive range of species present, as detailed by the work of Buglife, Kent Wildlife Trust, and the RSPB in the document submitted to English Nature , “Rationale for the SSSI designation of the Swanscombe Peninsula”, Jan 2021. Many of the notable species are plants and invertebrates, which have in the past often been overlooked, even though they are the powerhouse supporting more iconic species. The re-wilding of this once industrial area should be celebrated and provide a model enabling and encouraging re-wilding projects elsewhere. As such, the only building that would further enhance the recreational and ecological value of the site would be a small, non-intrusive, ecobuild education and research centre which would support the sharing of good practice and enable current, relatively local visitors; nature lovers; walkers; photographers etc. to gain more knowledge from their visit in addition to the physical and mental health benefits that have been illuminated by research during the COVID-19 pandemic. How the “London Theme Park” will exacerbate the interlinked crises of: (i) climate change, (ii) global loss of biodiversity, and (iii) this pandemic and future ones. The current proposal of a “London Theme Park” requiring four 1000 bed hotels, motorway construction and a cross Thames link, will (i) clearly add to the distances and number of people travelling to the area in private vehicles (even if some vehicles are electric), in addition to the pollution generated by the heavy construction traffic prior to the facility opening. These activities will produce more, rather than less gases contributing to climate change. (ii) The London Theme Park will destroy the Swanscombe Nature Reserve adding to the global loss of biodiversity. (iii) Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic existing hotels have been closed, with serious financial implications, as attempts to make them COVID-safe and ensure visitors are COVID-free, proved impossible. The proposed London Theme Park will be a serious transmission risk and will face closure and financial loss, as future pandemics are to be expected. Summary The proposal for the London Theme Park on Swanscombe Peninsula is outdated 20th century planning and completely counteracts efforts to solve the crises of the 21st century, namely Climate Change, Biodiversity Loss, Pandemic Control. Therefore, the London Theme Park proposal must be rejected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
TLT LLP on behalf of WH Smith Retail Holdings Limited
"We act for W H Smith Retail Holdings Limited which is in occupation of Retail Unit 2, Eurostar Departure Lounge, Ebbsfleet International Station, Kent. Although Ebbsfleet International Station is currently closed due to the pandemic, our client intends to recommence trading from the unit as soon as reasonably practicable once the station reopens. Our client has received notification that a DCO application has been submitted which proposes to take temporary possession of its unit. We understand that the purpose of this temporary possession is in connection with construction of the new resort terminal building and upgrading works to the station to increase capacity. Unfortunately the documentation is very difficult to read and to satisfactorily conclude the period of time during which this temporary possession will be taken. This leads to significant uncertainty to our client and on that basis, we do not believe that either any attempt has been made to engage with our client over the promoter’s proposals or to establish our client’s plans for the unit. As compulsory acquisition even on a temporary basis must be the option of last resort we do not believe that the promoter has made sufficient effort to date to satisfy that requirement. Added to this, no attempt has been made to consult with our client which is a requirement prior to an application for a Development Consent Order being made. As a result, the amount of detail that has been supplied to our client in order for it to properly consider its position in the light of this application is wholly inadequate. Our client will need to see plans of the new terminal building showing the proposed departure and arrival points of trains and passengers in order to assess the potential impact on footfall and trade of Retail Unit 2 of the proposed development once it has been completed in addition to detail relating to the temporary possession of its unit during the construction phase of the development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Firstplan Ltd on behalf of Amazon UK Services Limited
"Amazon welcome the opportunity to engage in the London Resort Examination process as an Interested Party. The London Resort is proposed near existing and future Amazon fulfilment centres, at Tilbury and at the former Littlebrook Power Station. The latter of which is due to become operational in August 2021. Full consideration must be given to existing and committed sites/uses to ensure the potential impact of the proposed London Resort development has been fully assessed. The primary concern of this representation is related to transport impact. As outlined below, there are areas where it is considered that the transport case for the proposed development is not sufficiently robust and needs further clarification to ensure there are no detrimental impacts on existing/committed uses. PEP Transport Consultants have undertaken an initial review of the documentation available and provide initial comments below. We respectfully reserve the right to add to, or amend the transport points or expand further on matters below in future written representations. • The limited number of comparable developments in the Transport Assessment means that visitor forecasts could be subject to a range of error. Rather than relying on single value forecasts, sensitivity testing should have been undertaken based on a range, as well as demonstrating that use of 85th%ile visitor rates was appropriate. The basis for using 85th%ile rates is not clear and is not accepted methodology in the United Kingdom. • The extent of information on testing and effect appears limited in scope given the scale of the London Resort scheme. Consideration of what information should have been provided but has not is as important as what has been provided. Examples include a lack of firm commitment to improved bus services and mitigation works at the ASDA (Tilbury) roundabout which could include traffic signals. • The lack of firm commitment to new or improved services in the Bus Strategy Plan could prejudice achieving assumed non-car travel levels. The London Resort Transport Assessment does not consider the impact on Fast Track or other bus services in terms of delay because of traffic congestion. • The traffic analysis including micro-simulation testing does not consider or report on the possible impacts of diversion of traffic onto other routes as a result of Resort traffic. This is one of the issues with the nearby Bluewater shopping centre. The diversion onto local roads would have an adverse effect on the reliability of buses from the east of Amazon’s former Littlebrook Power Station and would impact on traffic conditions, with Amazon staff from the site relying on these routes and services. • Traffic testing is unsatisfactory in general and especially in respect of the ASDA (Tilbury) roundabout as examining only standard commuter peaks misses both peak Resort activity periods and potential combined base and resort combinations. From work undertaken by PEP at the ASDA roundabout is known that the hours tested for the Resort are not the actual peak traffic periods. • Testing only standard commuter traffic peaks is not good practice for critical junctions. Given that the Resort will be a seven-day week operation and that Amazon operates in the same periods, flows should be examined at other times on weekdays and also Saturdays and Sundays. In addition, a review of the ASDA (Tilbury) roundabout traffic data used shows that the base flows used are incorrect and need to be reviewed. • The Resort has indicated that, other than for on-site hotel residents, there will be no visitors before 10.00. Given the peak hour restrictions at both Amazon sites, it is suggested that the London Resort should accept a condition not to open facilities prior to 10.00 other than for the on-site hotels. • In addressing parking demand, the difference in 85th%ile and peak day accumulation appears less than in visitor numbers. Car parking management appears to rely on an advanced booking system. The potential for off-site parking is considered on the Kent side, but not for Tilbury. Even with a booking system, the Tilbury car park would be disproportionately attractive for visitors from the north and east, especially given issues with the Thames Dartford Crossings and A2 junctions. The forecast parking accumulation for the Resort as a whole and hence the Tilbury parking, needs detailed examination. • The proposed Tilbury car park raises serious traffic concerns for Amazon’s Tilbury site given the non-standard peak timing of Amazon and future Resort traffic. The results given in the Transport Assessment are of little value. Identification and testing of actual likely overall peak periods are required to correctly consider the impact on the network. • Given the proximity of the Resort to the Dartford Crossing and the highway capacity issues in this area identified by Highways England, a robust assessment of traffic associated with the proposed Resort is needed to identify whether there is a need to implement highway improvements, including at locations already identified for improvement by Highways England, or whether highway restrictions are required."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Moscrop
"Swanscombe must not be destroyed. Every rare remaining wild place is precious and once gone cannot simply be put back. The wildlife that lives at Swanscombe is infinitely more valuable than a theme park. People need nature far more than they need theme parks."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Charlton
"I am a local resident and have followed the progress of this project since it was first mooted taking part in consultation meetings in the past."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Young
"My interest is with the opportunities available to those with a disability and the type of roles that are envisaged."
Members of the Public/Businesses
CBRE on behalf of B & T Plant Hire Limited
"We will want to bring to the attention of the Examining Authority matters relating to four principle aspects of the application: 1. The proposed use of Temporary Powers – Article 31 a) Any use of temporary powers should be limited to areas not intended to be compulsorily acquired. b) The applicant should be obligated to make advance payments when temporary powers are chosen to be used. c) The period over which land may be possessed under temporary powers needs to be limited to 2 years. d) Temporary possession powers should not permit the Applicant to demolish existing buildings. 2. Business Relocation We see no evidence that the Applicant has done anything to address: 1. Re-provision of premises for relocation of occupiers 2. Availability of property at the point of dispossession 3. Sufficient timescale within which to relocate businesses or reinvest in property 3. The London Resort Premium a) The fairness of the terms and conditions proposed b) The need for the offer to be secured within the DCO 4. Generalised Blight a) The impact on the property market (occupier and investor) during the period of uncertainty brought about by publication of the applicants’ proposals b) The lack of any support for most owners during the period of uncertainty"
Members of the Public/Businesses
CBRE on behalf of Balbir Kaur Halaith
"We will want to bring to the attention of the Examining Authority matters relating to four principle aspects of the application: 1. The proposed use of Temporary Powers – Article 31 a) Any use of temporary powers should be limited to areas not intended to be compulsorily acquired. b) The applicant should be obligated to make advance payments when temporary powers are chosen to be used. c) The period over which land may be possessed under temporary powers needs to be limited to 2 years. d) Temporary possession powers should not permit the Applicant to demolish existing buildings. 2. Business Relocation We see no evidence that the Applicant has done anything to address: 1. Re-provision of premises for relocation of occupiers 2. Availability of property at the point of dispossession 3. Sufficient timescale within which to relocate businesses or reinvest in property 3. The London Resort Premium a) The fairness of the terms and conditions proposed b) The need for the offer to be secured within the DCO 4. Generalised Blight a) The impact on the property market (occupier and investor) during the period of uncertainty brought about by publication of the applicants’ proposals b) The lack of any support for most owners during the period of uncertainty"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Caneparo Associates on behalf of Brett Radley, Global Mutual
"This Representation has been prepared on behalf of Global Mutual who are the appointed asset manager of Lakeside Shopping Centre, located at Chafford Hundred in Thurrock. Lakeside Shopping Centre is an important regional shopping destination serving the southeast of England, and is principally accessed from the M25 and A13 strategic routes. Global Mutual understands that a key component of the transport strategy for the London Resort DCO application includes a ‘Park & Glide’ (P&G) ferry facility to be located at the Port of Tilbury, Thurrock. The P&G will provide circa 2,500 car parking spaces once complete with the aim of reducing the quantum of M25 clockwise traffic travelling to the London Resort via the Dartford Crossing. The submitted Transport Assessment (TA) identifies a range of committed developments were included within the assessment of future traffic conditions, which are largely based on those allowed for within the A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet traffic model and Local Plan allocations. A review of these committed developments confirms that the Lakeside Northern Extension consent for circa 40,000 sqm retail floor space (Planning Ref: 19/01140/OUT) and current Arena Essex site hybrid planning application for the delivery of up to 2,500 homes (Planning Ref: 18/01671/FUL) are not directly included. It is understood that the Applicant has applied Tempro background traffic growth factors to account for additional development sites currently in planning or likely to come forward, however it is unclear whether this makes any allowance for the Lakeside Northern Extension or Arena Essex sites, which are not understood to be allocated sites within the Local Plan. In addition, the submitted TA identifies that potential traffic increases in the vicinity of Lakeside Shopping Centre will be dependent on the delivery of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC). Following the withdrawal of the DCO application for the LTC in December 2020, it is understood that Highways England proposes to resubmit the application, however the status of the project is currently unknown. The absence of direct inclusion of known committed developments and local applications, along with uncertainty over the status of the LTC, raises concerns regarding the robustness of the traffic capacity assessment of local strategic routes within the London Resort TA assessment, such as those upon which access to Lakeside Shopping Centre are reliant. In light of the above, Global Mutual is therefore registering as an Interested Party for the Examination Stage in order to better understand any limitations regarding the submitted traffic capacity analysis in the event that it needs to make further representations regarding impacts on traffic access to/from Lakeside Shopping Centre."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Franklin
"Concern over the suggested competence of the London Resort over areas of the tidal river Thames and the rights of navigation, sailors and others (PLA). London Resort appears to want to have by-law jurisdiction over areas of the Thames below the high water mark contrary to existing rights and regulations. They also propose time limited powers over usage and rights of existing users namely Broadness Cruising Club’s location."
Members of the Public/Businesses
CBRE on behalf of Brise Fabrications Limited
"We will want to bring to the attention of the Examining Authority matters relating to four principle aspects of the application: 1. The proposed use of Temporary Powers – Article 31 a) Any use of temporary powers should be limited to areas not intended to be compulsorily acquired. b) The applicant should be obligated to make advance payments when temporary powers are chosen to be used. c) The period over which land may be possessed under temporary powers needs to be limited to 2 years. d) Temporary possession powers should not permit the Applicant to demolish existing buildings. 2. Business Relocation We see no evidence that the Applicant has done anything to address: 1. Re-provision of premises for relocation of occupiers 2. Availability of property at the point of dispossession 3. Sufficient timescale within which to relocate businesses or reinvest in property 3. The London Resort Premium a) The fairness of the terms and conditions proposed b) The need for the offer to be secured within the DCO 4. Generalised Blight a) The impact on the property market (occupier and investor) during the period of uncertainty brought about by publication of the applicants’ proposals b) The lack of any support for most owners during the period of uncertainty"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Allen
"I’ve been interested in this project from the beginning , I’m a parent of a severely disabled child and would like to know how accessible the resort will be . It would be good to get some input from people that live the life and understand the difficulties of spending a day out if the facilities do not meet the needs of the disabled child / adult I realise we have the equal opportunities bill and the health and safety bill but I hope that my child will be able to enjoy the resort , have a wonderful experience and make lovely memories the same as everyone else . Please could you keep me updated on any issues regarding facilities for the disabled"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Apps
"I am deeply saddened to hear of the proposed development of Swanscombe Marshes. So many vital wildlife habitats are being lost to the world on a daily basis. Soon, nothing will be left for future generations to enjoy. I would ask that Swanscombe Marshes be left to remain the vital ecosystem that it is. There are many theme parks in the UK already. This one is not needed. Natural England has asked that Swanscombe be a Site of Special Scientific Interest, that is how important this site is. Please save Swanscombe Marshes. Yours sincerely Catherine Apps"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte
"I have learnt so much about this marshland and the nature it holds. It has such a variety of endangered species in a time when the world is in a climate emergency, how does building a disney resort keep to beingon a carbon neutral pathways by 2030. The types of birds, insects that are speific to this marsh need to be protected for the rest of the Uk to see and visit. Can we not make jobs with this being a wildlife habitat and to teach children and adults to look after our habitats and make this a starting point in saving the only pockets of wildebeest left in the UK. If this resort goes ahead we will kill endangered species , birds , insects to this specific habitat and there is not another habitat like it. The jumping spider is a major endangered species on this list and the recorded accounts of each species daily on this habitat is massive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Rose
"There is a widely acknowledged biodiversity crisis, both nationally and globally, with report after report (such as the successive State of Nature reports e.g. 2019) showing serious declines in both rare and many commoner species. This will not be tackled, nor will the government's supposed concern for biodiversity, be credible if we as a country allow building on even our best wildlife sites such as SSSIs. I agree with the Lawton Review (2010) that, inter alia, called for bigger and better joined up nature sites to help reverse biodiversity declines. As far as I am concerned, Swanscombe Marses is an important stepping stone in the massively depleted chain of Thames-side marsland sites in the inner estuary, including Rainham, Dartford and both Crayford and Erith marshes, the latter two of which I have helped fight to try and protect from planning attacks. All this habitat should be retained and improved. I do not accept the de facto policy of government that the way to increase wildlife is to cram it into ever less space. The proposed theme park will destroy much of the SSSI area, and the artist's impressions show the usual sanitised landscaping (and way too much lifeless hard surfacing) which the applicant would have us believe is adequate 'mitigation'. It has claimed that the scheme will be operationally carbon neutral, but what about the massive carbon, metal and concrete costs of construction? I twill also drive a wholly unnecessary increase in transportation carbon costs from visitors. That such a massively damaging scheme is deemed 'nationally significant' in any kind of 'positive' way is disturbing. The only up side to this is that the local Council, if anything like mine, would be more likely to roll over and vote for it. Please reject this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Client Horizons limited
"As a local resident of Swanscombe, as well as local company direcor, I see this being an absolutely vital contributor the revival of our local economy and wider. I believe there are challenges including ensuring the wonderful nature reserves are preserved as well as transport / traffic considerations. But with innovation and collaboration, I am hopeful that a reasonable compromise is reached and we take this wonderful project forward. I am registering as an invdidual interested in keeping abreast, and engaging with the examination process as it progresses. I am particularly keen on how the investors will commit to community and capacity building initiatives within the local area, so people are prepared to embrace and contribute to the success of this project for many years to come, and for the whole of the UK Many thanks Julius"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Britteon
"I live locally and have walked on the peninsular many times. It is a wilderness and a haven for so much wildlife. Loss of Habitat: The building of the new Ebbsfleet housing estates and the station has destroyed a massive chunk of wildlife habitat in the Ebbsfleet Valley and in my view we cannot afford to lose any more, particularly the varied environments that the Peninsular provides. Some of the creatures and fauna that live on the peninsular would no doubt be wiped out, if not by the building of the resort, then by human intrusion and associated pollution. Recognition of the importance of the area: I understand that Natural England have recommended Swanscombe Marshes be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, I find astonishing therefore that we can be contemplating sacrificing the importance of this area to something as trivial as a theme park. We are constantly reminded of how important pollinators are to the planet but here we are looking at a wholesale destruction of their habitat. General Pollution: The waste generated by visitors to the theme park will be substantial but more generally vehicular pollution will be a major problem. The A2 is extremely busy now, so an additional huge amount of traffic will, I fear swamp the road infrastructure and cause problems. Millions of pounds were spent moving the A2 away from the urban areas of Northfleet because of pollution but the theme park will almost certainly lead to many more vehicles on the A2 or any new road built alongside it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Bowen
"Swanscombe Marshes has evolved into a unique and rich SSI wildlife site. The species it supports range from 250 invertebrates (including a critically endangered jumping spider), 15 red-listed birds of conservation concern as well as rare plants and mammal populations. During the current biodiversity crisis, it is vital such a habitat is preserved for future generations. To destroy it for a ‘theme park’ that could simply be located elsewhere is unthinkable and unjustifiable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dennis Parker
"I feel that this should go a head as we have more than one site as a natural wildlife and the construction of this park would bring inmuch needed jobs for the area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Parris
"I oppose the project, firstly on the grounds of its negative environmental and ecological impacts. The developer's own Ecology Baseline Report,the joint representations of the RSPB, Kent Wildlife Trust and Buglife, the existence of one of the few non-coastal Marine Conservation Zones on a relevant section of the Thames, and Natural England's proposal to designate the area as an SSI, are all testimony to the area's international and national and local importance for the preservation of our declining fauna and flora. "Greening" and conservation and reducing carbon emissions are now national priorities. The development will also negate the area's potential to provide a vital green "lung", providing an important and much needed recreational, health, and educational resource for the residents of the neighbouring areas, which are being intensively developed. It must also be noted that the development proposal also represents only the first phase of an intended two stage, enlarged theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Jaques
"Swanscombe peninsula has been designated a site of specific scientific interest but even if it wasn’t we know that a very rare jumping spider lives here and many different rare bugs and wildlife . Once we take the places these species live we cannot replace them. I grew up here and know this area as the Swanscombe marshes. Not the most pleasant of places when I was a child it has, as nature tends to when left to its own devices, adapted and diversified into a magnificent home, full of rare bugs and spiders. It has become a favourite for bird watchers ! We don’t have many places for birds to thrive in Dartford! Also , bees are having a difficult time at the moment. Dartford has seen so much growth in housing and development destroying the plants and flowers that these amazing insects need to thrive. This unique habitat must be protected - we cannot replace it. Once it’s gone, it’s gone along with all the wonderful wildlife that lives there."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Nicola Hall
"I believe that Swanscombe Marsh must not be used as site for the 'London Resort'. It is awaiting designation as a SSSI, and contains supra-nationally important populations of exceedingly rare wildlife. It is particularly special as a mosaic of rare habitats. These include rare plants, invertebrates (the bed rock of a rich biodiverse ecology) reptiles, mammals and birds. It is one of only two sites in the UK where a particular spider survives. It is a site for nightingales and other exceptionally rare birds. England is one of the most biodiverse-depleted countries in the world (189th out of 220) and special sites like this one, constantly threatened by development, need all the protection we can give them and most definitely should not be considered for a profiteering development of a resort. Once lost, these sites can never be reconstituted: offering alternative sites for the wildlife in question is laughable because of the complexity and richness of the ecology present that cannot possibly be recreated elsewhere."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Farrer & Co on behalf of Dr Richard Ryder
"Our client, Dr Richard Ryder, is the owner of Plot[] on the Land Plan for The London Resort, as set out in the Book of Reference provided by the London Resort Company (the Applicant). Plot[] is intended to be taken for Work No. 1, being the central part of the proposed theme park. Our client wishes to make the following representations in relation to the proposed DCO for The London Resort: • Our client does not object to the development of the London Resort in principle, however the wide scope of the compulsory acquisition powers that the Applicant has requested is not justified or appropriate in this case. • There is no reason for the purchase of the land required by the Applicant to be compulsory when it could instead be acquired by private agreement. The Applicant has not adequately consulted or negotiated with landowners to voluntarily purchase the land, nor taken into account the characteristics of individual landowners such as our client when engaging in consultation. • The Applicant has not adequately made the case that an DCO with compulsory acquisition powers should been granted in principle. A private commercial enterprise such as a theme park should not be eligible to benefit from compulsory acquisition. A theme park is not essential for the public good, and there are no guarantees that the economic, employment and tourism benefits cited in the Statement of Reasons will happen in reality. • In addition, the arguments made in the Statement of Reasons do not show a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition. • The Applicant has not shown adequate justification for the interference with our client’s Human Rights, in particular the right to peaceful enjoyment of his property under Article 1 of the First Protocol. Our client is of the view that the Applicant’s request for compulsory acquisition powers should be denied for the above reasons. Our client believes that that compulsory acquisition is not appropriate in this case and so the development of the London Resort should instead proceed by purchasing the land by private agreement. Our client will address the issues set out above in more detail in a further written representation once the Examination has commenced."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elite Site Supplies Ltd
"London Resort Development Consent Order – representations I am a Director of Elite Site Supplies Ltd. We occupy Unit [] under a leasehold interest. Our property is within the boundary of the London Resort Development Consent Order. If development consent is granted, our property will be subject to compulsory acquisition. Our business is Tool hire and site supplies for the construction industry and we employ approx 25 staff. We need to remain within the Ebbsfleet and Gravesend area in order to retain both customers and staff. We are concerned that finding a suitable and affordable replacement property will be extremely difficult. The trend over the last five years or so, of the compulsorily acquisition and redevelopment of industrial property for high-density residential purposes, and in this case for leisure purposes, has resulted in a reduction in the supply of affordable industrial property in East London, Essex and Kent. This situation has been exacerbated by an increase in demand for logistics property due to the rise of internet shopping and more recently due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Because of this, industrial values have increased significantly. There is also a diminishing amount of property that is suitable for the businesses that will be displaced if development consent is granted for the London Resort. It seems that little thought has been given to where the many businesses affected by these schemes, and in particular by the London Resort development, will operate from after their premises have been acquired and redeveloped."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Wakefield
"We cannot afford to ignore the environmental crisis by building on this land. Humans don't need more entertainment. Wildlife needs a habitat. It is utterly irresponsible to go on building without regard for the impact on the other inhabitants of earth. In the end humans will suffer the most."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Freddie Melling
"Marshes exist for a reason. The reason is to create a transition from rivers or other bodies of water to more solid and higher ground. Marshes provide an important ecological function, such as filtering water of toxins and providing habitat for shore birds and other species. As the seasons pass, weather conditions will change and you’ll be affected by seasonal flooding or tides rising, which may flood your house. People who build in marshy areas usually put their houses on tall stilts or pilings that must be driven into the ground deeply to make them stable for future flooding. They keep nothing valuable below the house because they know and expect flooding to occur, yearly or even more often. Marshy or wetlands are usually cheaper land to buy, which makes them attractive. But on the whole, it’s not a good idea. It’s bad for the environment and you’d be taking on a big financial risk of losing everything, during periodic weather fluctuations, which are currently on the uprise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GAP Group Limited
"we have a plant hire business adjacent to the ASDA roundabout on Dock Road, Tilbury. we have been told that the ferry part of TLR using Tilbury Docks will not have an adverse impact on the existing and future commercial businesses in the immediate vicinity. We disagree and any new non dock related traffic will have an adverse impact on our business and growth. We chose to locate to this site due to our requirement to have high quality and free access to the major arterial routes to transport our hire assets to our customers. We we told that ferry traffic will be "off-peak". Tilbury's commercial activity operates 24/7 so that cannot be true. TLR have not undertaken sufficient investigations or consulted with the majority of Tilbury occupiers. We require every square foot of our 6 acre open storage depot and any Compulsory Purchase of of any part of our land by TLR will have a severely negative impact on our £9m Tilbury business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Bate
"I am writing to make my comments on the proposal to develop the Swanscombe Peninsular as a "theme park". As an ex-Londoner who has loved and walked on different parts of the Thames Estuary over many years, I feel the loss of this valuable amenity for understanding and contemplating our diminishing natural world would be irreparable. I am appalled that at a time of climate emergency and the DAILY revelations of biodiversity loss, extinctions and near extinctions of hundreds of vulnerable insects, plants, birds and mammals a development of this kind should even be given consideration. How clear does it need to be that human beings are trashing our precious planet beyond a point of no return? Natural England in their survey and recognition that this is a site of special scientific interest have made abundantly clear how many species would be affected by this proposal: the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider found in only one other site among 250 other invertebrates of Conservation Concern, 49 red-listed invertebrates, the Tentacled lagoon worm, 15 red-listed birds of Conservation concern, 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species. You have the survey in all its detail. This alone should be enough to give those involved in making such controversial planning decisions pause for thought. Swanscombe Marshes, in the middle of the Thames Estuary with its unique mosaic of coastal habitats, grassland, scrub and wetlands, is very precious in being one of the LAST remaining brownfield habitats in the already overdeveloped Estuary. We cannot, either nationally or globally afford to lose this important site. We do not need another theme park. What we do need is urgent thinking on our human values in relationship to our damaged planet where historic landscapes can so easily be destroyed leaving future generations with a moribund environment. Please do not go down the route of a development such as proposed. The development is morally and humanly indefensible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heidi Barnes
"Sea levels are rising & the SE is sinking . We need to keep & in fact enlarge marshes , they soak up storm water . Converting a marsh which stores & soaks up flood water , into acres of hard paving , will make future flooding in Kent & Essex more of a problem . Once the marsh has been drained & destroyed it can't just be put back . Building this theme park right on the Thames , on a wildlife reserve , is unnecessary - there are other places which are less important to wildlife & will be less affected by Thames storm surges ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Indie Sahota
"I strongly oppose to any form of building work/change of use around the vicinity of Swanscombe Peninsula. I'm concerned as to why anyone would destroy the habitat of such amazing wildlife around the area. We are so grateful to be able to observe such species considering we are so close to London. We should be protecting our native species not wiping them out to build yet another theme park which frankly is not needed in the area, considering the congestion and already concerning levels of pollution due to the Dartford Crossing. Why encourage in excess of 10,000 vehicles to enter an area which should be protected, further increase pollution and cause travel chaos for all surrounding towns and villages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isabel Popper
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is a unique wildlife haven. It is home to an outstanding range of wildlife, which depend on it for survival. These species include 15 red-listed birds of conservation concern, and 12 species of principal importance. It is also home to bats, water voles and otters, as well as more than 250 species of invertebrates of conservation concern. This is why it has been recommended to be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest by Natural England. I am very concerned that wildlife is in serious decline across the country, so we should preserve our remaining wildlife havens. On a personal note, my cousin has fond memories of being taken to Swanscombe as a child by his father."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Reid
"I think this is a wonderful proposal - it will help to: - Rejuvenate a run down area - Generate significant employment - Attract tourists from Europe - particularly those near Eurostar stations"
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Willis
"Representation for the planning application of The London Resort (LRCH) Planning Inspectorate Reference: The proposed creation of the theme park for to be built on the Swanscombe peninsula offers significant economic benefits including an increased and diversified employment offer within an area affected by high levels of deprivation and with few other significant employment opportunities. However for both the immediate area and the wider Thames Estuary, including North Kent and South Essex, to benefit from the opportunities consideration must be given at this stage to providing the necessary transport infrastructure to support the project and to contribute to wider regeneration. It is important that in this regard that both policy aspirations within the NPPF) and the Government’s wider climate change objectives are addressed in the scheme’s approach to achieving sustainable development and promoting a sufficiently robust sustainable transport system in order to avoid environmental issues and to reduce the carbon footprint. Therefore I have evidence that better integrated sustainable transport options, including cross river linkages, could have been identified, assessed and considered, including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects of the development, and for net environmental gains. The need to address this is underlined by the uncertainties present in much of the traffic modelling work done for the proposal and the limited capacity on the existing rail network, which taken together strengthen the need for robust mitigation Addressing this and the issues noted below will result in a positive impact, in Planning Policy terms Consideration needs to be given to Quality public transport such as proposed cross river tram and to reducing the impact on the biodiversity of the Swanscombe Peninsula, particularly by securing the reduction of the land take required by roads and car parks and cars and particulate pollution from road vehicles by providing an environmentally sound sustainable transport solution. The proposal to utilize Greenhithe station for connection with the North Kent Rail Line rather than Swanscombe station is very disruptive to local residents resulting in significant numbers of late night buses going through residential areas. By using Swanscombe station as a connection node much nearer to the London Resort entrance these issues can be avoided. . The use of ferries from Tilbury as a major form of access may not have been properly thought through for the following reasons: relies significant car journeys to Tilbury with the associated land loss for parking and particulate pollution from road vehicles additionally the ferries could create navigational issues with the existing river traffic. I can see evidence the London Resort application needs to be more aligned with planning policy objectives set out within the NPPF which stress that opportunities for proactive planning should be taken to shape the appropriate scale and location of development and that development should underpinned by sustainable transport solutions where opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued. I welcome the opportunity to further engage with the process of the DCO to assist with the discussion of the creation of an integrated sustainable transport system for London Resort and the surrounding area, and to the mitigation of the proposals impact on the community ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Burnett
"Please don't destroy this unique and invaluable space for British wildlife just to build a theme park. More habitat loss will be devastating for so many species that are already struggling because of human incursion and man made climate change. You can't get it back once it's gone!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennie Linnett
"I am interested in learning about the London Resort and the impact it is likely to have on the area. I am concerned about impact on transport and traffic management, jobs and how it will impact the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katrina Fox
"I have been an interested party since finding out about the project back in 2010, I would like the opportunity to work within the theme park when it opens."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly-Ann McGuinness
"I am a resident of[] and feel very passionately that the Swanscombe Peninsula is the wrong place to build a theme park. Swanscombe Marshes is where I have taken my daily walks during the Covid-19 pandemic, and in that time I have learnt just exactly how rich and abundant the area is with wildlife. As a novice nature enthusiast, Swanscombe Marshes has been a place where I have experienced so much joy and wonder at spotting such a wide range of birds and insects. I have also been able to hone my photography skills and have created a social media page solely for the photographs that I take at the marshes. This page has proved very popular and I have followers from all over the world who remark at the scenes and wildlife images that I post. I have seen Cuckoos, Marsh Harriers and Bearded Tits. I have learnt about the plants that grow there including the endangered Man Orchid. I have seen weasels, water voles and many common lizards. In the space of a year I have learnt a huge amount of knowledge thanks to my experiences at Swanscombe Marshes. My time spent at the marshes and learning about the wildlife there has been absolutely invaluable in terms of the impact it has had on my mental health and wellbeing. I know that from speaking to other members of the local community that Swanscombe Marshes has provided a much needed ‘nature space’ to many people during the pandemic, and I also believe that the community depends on future access to this space in order to promote good health and wellbeing. In my view Swanscombe Marshes should be viewed as a ‘National Treasure’ - to be celebrated and protected. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world with more than 40% of our species in decline. Surely we must work harder to value our wildlife and natural spaces rather than destroy them. The pandemic has shown us just how much we rely on nature for our wellbeing. Being able to spend an increased amount of time exploring Swanscombe Marshes has absolutely changed my life and opened doors for me, as I am sure it has done for others. Protecting the Swanscombe Peninsula must take priority over the plans to build a theme park, as it is our responsibility to care for our natural spaces, and our right to be able to enjoy and have access to them."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kerry Hood
"The marshes and the peninsular might not look very auspicous but it is a fantastic place for wildlife. When you walk through the rough grassland, there are wildflowers under every step, it is amazing. The thought of losing it before I see the Dartford Warblers, and before I see the man orchid, is very saddening. And it has it's own beauty, tawny grass and reeds and reflections in the river under a blue sky. An oasis in a busy estuary in a busy world. These habitats deserve preservation - not in little spaces between an overwhelming huge resort development, but as a coherent whole. Wild areas like these are being covered in concrete at an alarming rate and we need to preserve the ones that are still there, not fragment them and cover them in concrete. Swanscombe peninsular hosts a lot of overwintering migrant birds, who need peace and quiet, not hordes of people from the 'resort'. Traffic pollutions is already high in Dartford and doesn't need an extra 20K car journeys in this area. The local road network struggles to cope, especially with all the new distribution centres. The resort is replacing good, family-supporting jobs with minimum-wage seasonal work. Please reject this trophy project and leave the peninsular to the locals and wildlife."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kevin Ramsey
"This is a brilliant idea and will change Kent in a positive way forever"
Non-Statutory Organisations
CBRE on behalf of Kulwinder Kaur Bains, Davinder Singh Bains and Hornbuckle Ltd
"We will want to bring to the attention of the Examining Authority matters relating to four principle aspects of the application: 1. The proposed use of Temporary Powers – Article 31 a) Any use of temporary powers should be limited to areas not intended to be compulsorily acquired. b) The applicant should be obligated to make advance payments when temporary powers are chosen to be used. c) The period over which land may be possessed under temporary powers needs to be limited to 2 years. d) Temporary possession powers should not permit the Applicant to demolish existing buildings. 2. Business Relocation We see no evidence that the Applicant has done anything to address: 1. Re-provision of premises for relocation of occupiers 2. Availability of property at the point of dispossession 3. Sufficient timescale within which to relocate businesses or reinvest in property 3. The London Resort Premium a) The fairness of the terms and conditions proposed b) The need for the offer to be secured within the DCO 4. Generalised Blight a) The impact on the property market (occupier and investor) during the period of uncertainty brought about by publication of the applicants’ proposals b) The lack of any support for most owners during the period of uncertainty"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Edie
"The Swanscombe Peninsula is a crucial area for wildlife, with the mixed mosaic of habitats, that has come about due to the pre industrial use of the land, creating the ideal habitat for hundreds of rare and endangered species. This includes rare invertebrates, such as The critically endangered Distinguished Jumping Spider, found in only one other site in the UK! It is also home to lizards, water voles, plants such as the Man Orchid and more nesting birds than the nearby nature reserve at Rainham! Environmentalists have declared this area as the most significant brownfiend site for biodiversity in the UK, and it has recently been designated as a Site of Scientific Special Interest (SSSI).This status means that the Peninsula is now recognised as being an nationally important area for wildlife. To me it is baffling that the plans to turn such a precious wildlife haven into a theme park are still ongoing. If the planned theme park does go ahead, it will mean the loss of 140 active businesses and thousands of good local jobs already on the Peninsula. In a recent nationwide air quality study, an area in Dartford was found to be the most polluted in the UK! One of the worst affected AQMA, actually runs parallel to the proposed London Resort site. I live in Dartford and am a Green Party local councillor for Newtown ward. Both from the perspective as a Mother to an [Redacted] year old, and protecting the health of my constituents, I have huge concerns about the amount of extra cars, therefore traffic and pollution a theme park on our doorstep will bring to our already heaving roads, over develiped and polluted borough. Marshes are incredibly important in sequestering Co2 and locking it in. They are also a flood defence barrier. With rising sea levels due to climate change, London Resort could potentially face flooding, so the destruction of this wildlife gem would have been detrimental not only to the environment, local jobs and the mental health of locals who enjoy escaping and enjoying this natural haven, but after all of this, it could well end up submerged under water! Climate change is accelerating so rapidly because people are no longer living in sync with the planet. We need to start protecting our environment, and not simply accepting the loss of land to make way for profit. The time to start defending these important sites now, and I hope a decision is made that sends out a message to corporations down the line. My concern is if an SSSI is allowed to be developed on for the frivolity of a theme park, then what precedent does this set for future developments? Thank you for taking the time to read my objections, Kind Regards, Laura Edie Green Party Councillor for Newtown (Dartford)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lee Bettridge
"As I live very close by to the proposed site and use Bluewater and the surrounding area for recreation I am very interested in this application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Turley on behalf of Legal & General Pensions Limited
"We hereby submit a Relevant Representation on behalf of Legal & General Pensions Limited (“L&G”) with respect to the Application for Development Consent Order for The London Resort (hereafter: “the Proposed DCO”, ref. BC080001) and to register as an Interested Party. L&G and its interest in the Proposed DCO It is considered that it will be helpful to provide some background information on L&G and their interest in the Proposed DCO. As a major landowner and long term investor in the UK economy, L&G understand the benefits that big investment projects such as The London Resort can bring to communities and is therefore supportive of the principle, and hopeful that the application will be approved. However, our client has a responsibility to protect the value of the assets it owns on behalf of the millions of investors that entrust their savings and retirement to them. L&G is the landowner of the London Distribution Park, Windrush Road, Tilbury, RM18 7AN (“the site”/”the asset”), a multi-level warehouse and distribution facility with a total Gross Internal Area of approx. 2.2m sq ft employing c.3,000 people in total, which sits adjacent to the ‘Asda Roundabout’ on the A1089 (and ‘Work No. 21a’ of the Proposed DCO). For the avoidance of doubt, the Asda Roundabout forms the junction between the A1089 St Andrews Road / Dock Road, Windrush Road and Thurrock Park Way. The Proposed DCO, any associated changes to the traffic flow (along the A1089 and surrounding road network) resulting from the proposed works to the (new) Tilbury Ferry Terminal including parking for up to 2,500 vehicles (described in the Proposed DCO as “the Essex Project Site”), and required mitigation works to the Asda Roundabout have the potential to significantly affect the day-to-day operation of L&G’s current or future tenants. Our client therefore needs to ensure that the assessment of the highways and transport impact of the Proposed DCO, and with this the mitigation proposed, is thorough, robust and does not lead to adverse impacts on the road network that would make the operation of the asset harder for its current or future tenants, and has reviewed relevant documentation of the Proposed DCO under this aspect. Outline of Key (Material) Issues, Concerns & Recommendations As set out above, the site is an important contributor to the wider (logistics) functioning of the adjacent London Gateway Port as well as the local and national economy. Whilst it is acknowledged that there is no National Policy Statement (“NPS”) for business or commercial projects such as the Proposed DCO, the NPS for Ports (2012) describes ports, such as the London Gateway Port, as “an essential element in ensuring sustainable growth in the UK economy” (Para. 3.1.4) which require “unimpeded access” (Para. 1.1.2). It is therefore of utmost importance for the Applicant (and Examining Authority) to ensure that the port as well as any associated businesses, warehouses, logistics and employment facilities, such as the site, are fully protected against any potentially adverse impacts resulting from the Proposed DCO. Having reviewed the Proposed DCO and its supporting documents, our client wishes to reiterate that it is fully supportive of the principle of the proposed development, but would like to raise the following key issues, concerns and recommendations with regards to potential transport impacts on its asset and/or other Interested Parties with an interest/land holding in the area: Transport Assessment Data Sets • The number of different sources used increases the risk of data inconsistencies across the modelled network given the different dates of data collection and possible variations in counting techniques. • Further clarification is required as to whether the data sets used took into account the operational hours of the development close to the Asda Roundabout which operates significantly outside of the modelled peak hours as well as in the modelled peak hours. Transport assessment – Appropriate Methodologies • It is accepted that there was agreement in place to undertake the modelling approach, however it is unclear why Highways England did not request the use of their South-East Regional Transport Model (“SERTM”) or the Lower Thames Crossing (“LTC”) strategic model to assess the impact of The London Resort traffic and subsequent mitigation proposals on their managed highway network. Further clarification on this matter is required. • In addition, it is unclear why a microsimulation model was not requested for the A1089 corridor in Tilbury. Given the strategic importance of this corridor both to Highways England and Thurrock, a VISSIM microsimulation model would have provided a clearer picture of the impact of the Development traffic on the Tilbury highway network. No evidence has been found as to whether the Linsig model of the Asda Roundabout provides a reasonable reflection of the existing conditions at the junction. Impacts During Construction • Further evidence is required to understand the impacts on the Asda junction during construction. This is with particular regard to the shift patterns of 750 staff who will be accommodated at the vessel at Port of Tilbury whose journey may impact on the Asda Roundabout. Proposed Mitigation at the Asda Roundabout • It is noted that the proposed mitigation considers the combination of The London Resort and Tilbury 2 but still only offers a solution at full junction capacity. There is unreasonable reliance on the potential impact of the possible LTC scheme. It would typically be expected that the mitigation proposals are presented in more detail on a plan, with the location of the traffic signal stoplines and posts indicated along with measurements of widths of lanes etc. so that the modelling parameters used can be verified. • This level of detail has not been provided and it has therefore not been possible to check the mitigation proposals as part of Proposed DCO against the junction assessments. It is therefore recommended that a detailed plan of the proposals is provided. Order Limits • From the review of documents 2.2, 2.18 and 4.3, the Order Limits are set within the highway boundary for the Asda Roundabout (Thurrock Council and Highways England). This implies that no land is required outside of the Order Limits for any future improvements to the Asda Roundabout. However, if land is required for mitigation that is outside the Order Limits, the submitted information is unclear as to how this land will be obtained, and by whom. • Clarification is required of the extent to which the Order Limits affect the junction of Dock Road (A126) which provides a further access to the site. Clarification is also required of the extent to which the Order Limits affect the junction of Thurrock Park Way and the Asda Roundabout. Limits of Deviation • It is noted that in Article 5 of the Draft DCO (section 5b) in respect of any boundary between the areas of two numbered works may deviate laterally by 20 metres either side of the boundary shown on the works plans. It is necessary to clarify how these limits of deviation can apply to L&G land ownership with particular regard to the Asda Roundabout. Draft DCO Articles 12, 16 and 17 • We wish for it to be noted that we require amendments to the wordings in these particular articles. This would deal with the uncertainty surrounding the limits of deviation, the order limits and the production of the Construction Traffic Management Plan. Conclusion As set out above, although supportive of the principle of the Proposed DCO, our client seeks to ensure that all of its transport-related impacts are thoroughly assessed and robustly mitigated against. At present, it is considered that this element of the Proposed DCO is not fully resolved and L&G therefore urges the Examining Authority to consider the content of this Relevant Representation at Examination stage. A full Written Representation will be formally submitted when the Examination commences."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Liam George
"As a local resident I’m interested in the development and regeneration this project will attract to the wider community."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Luke Bleakley
"I support the London Resort plans for the economic benefits the resort will bring to the surrounding areas and the U.K. The resort will create a wide range of jobs and boost tourism. A landmark project like this will be great for COVID recovery. The resort has ensured sustainability is a theme running throughout the resort helping to cement the UK’s position as a leader in climate change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mandy Holland
"I do a lot of Bird Watching and walking on the Swanscombe Marshes and love seeing all the amazing bird life that we have there. There are lots of reeds and marsh land that the birds and wildlife thrive on, a variety of insects which in turn feed the birds. I pay to go to some RSPB sites and they do not have some of there rare birds that are found at Swanscombe. There is also the critically endangered Distinguished Jumping spider that are only found here and across the river. There are also rare bees that inhabit the swanscombe marshes. If you look up you may witness the two Marsh Harrier's that also live there high up in the trees. The whole site is really a haven for wildlife and also a haven for humans to go and be among all of the wildlife, we do not have many places like this that I can walk to from my house and I absolutely love it and would be devastated it if was taken away from me and all the wildlife that reside there."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Dorman
"I love the fact that Swanscombe Peninsula is a unique place that has developed from an area that saw so much industrialisation. It’s home for more conservation-concern species (including Red-listed) than anywhere else in the UK. With Natural England’s recommendation that the area be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest, I would hope that the Distinguished Jumping Spider (critically endangered and found on only one other site in UK) and many other species of invertebrates might have a safe and protected environment. There are so many conservation-concern birds, and scarce plants, and various small animals. I fear that the damage done to them from the London Resort will be immeasurable and irreversible, despite the plan to leave three areas of marshland for them. The influx of people, with the noise, refuse and general disturbance, will undoubtedly have a negative impact. We are just beginning to realise the impact we are having on the planet, our environment and the multitude of flora and fauna with whom we share it. I cannot see how this theme park is compatible with that approach. I moved to Swanscombe at the age of 4 and spent all my school years there; my first job at 18 was for APCM at the Northfleet Cement Works. Growing up, I would go for long walks with my Mum to both the marshes and Swanscombe Woods (now largely gone). It breaks my heart to think the that area she shared with me, with its wildness and open space, the wild flowers and the birds, might be largely gone before my grandchildren have a chance to see and enjoy it. The marshes on the peninsula remain an accessible open and green space for those living locally in what is an increasingly urban environment. They provide somewhere to go, away from all the buildings and traffic, and remind us how important our well-being is. We need open green spaces, and our local wildlife needs somewhere safe to live. Swanscombe Peninsula is a vital green space, sitting alongside a densely populated area of Kent, the county known as ‘The Garden of England’. Please don’t pave over the garden and destroy the habitat reclaimed so successfully by wildlife. Please don’t do something which might lead to the loss of another species such as the distinguished jumping spider – like the dodo and the moa, they don’t come back once they are gone."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Picksley
"I want to register my objection to the proposed London Resort development of the Swanscombe Peninsula. During the trying time of the Covid-19 pandemic, the one bright point for me has been that we've been able to access nature and wildlife as part of our daily exercise. Swanscombe Peninsula has been a particular highlight for me because of the unique variety of habitats in the local area and so the wildlife there. Something that's been recognised through the awarding of SSSI status. I go to see the bird life and have got a real buzz from doing so, seeing birds there I don't see elsewhere, for example this weekend, a Bullfinch, my only sighting this year. It seems totally inappropriate that a site that means so much to local people, as well as being nationally so important because of the rare species that live there, should be developed as theme park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Wildman
"I am deeply disturbed that an area I know well is endangered. The wildlife is rich and varied and includes some nationally rare flora. The area itself still retains a haunting natural wildness and beauty that is increasingly rare in this part of the country. We should be protecting these valuable green pockets not seeking to destroy them. To destroy this countryside is to be in direct conflict with our climate emergency goals. I urge the inspectorate to consider the enormous range of wildlife supported by this area and the unique character it brings to this part of the world and reject the proposed destruction. Thank you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Wilcox
"The development under consideration has the potential to destroy habitat that is unique in its flora fauna and crucially can not be moved, relocated or mitigated under the current plans. We are at risk of loosing, permanently, a large part of our natural cultural heritage through the loss of this precious habitat. I call upon you to prevent something as culturally, scientifically and unique to be destroyed by this development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Bowra
"Although living now in Scotland I spent over 40 years living and playing in the area that this development is intending to be built. The area was run down and in many places an eyesore. The fact that somebody is willing to invest so much time and money to bring this area back to life and provide so many jobs and opportunities should be applauded and I will give my full support to the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Freeths LLP on behalf of MTD Coln Industrial Limited
"1. We act as Town Planning consultants to MTD Coln Industrial Limited (“MTD”) in relation to the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) application by London Resort Holdings (“LRH” or “the Applicant”). MTD is the freehold owner of the part of the Application Site known as the Kent Kraft Industrial Estate, Northfleet identified on the Land Plans as Plots 89-102 (“the Site” / “KKIE”). 2. Due to the effect of the Proposed Development on the Site and MTD’s interests, MTD objects to the Application and wishes to register as an Interested Party in the forthcoming Examination. This Statement outlines the basis of MTD’s objection as its Relevant Representation (“RR”). 3. This RR has been prepared jointly and with the input of the following as joint advisors to MTD: • Dentons: Planning & Compulsory Purchase Lawyers; and • CBRE: Compulsory Purchase Surveyors. The Site 4. The Site is just over 1 acre, located 1km northeast of the centre of Swanscombe. The Site can be broadly split into three industrial / warehouse units on the south side of Lower Road which forms the only access and link to the wider highway network. This is accessed from the south via the A226 (Galley Hill Road) which runs to the south of the Site. 5. The Site is occupied by 12 tenants for light industrial, storage and distribution and trade counter uses, many of whom are long term occupiers of the Estate. It is a significant and important local source of employment and scarce industrial logistics land close to the strategic road network (M2, M25 and beyond). The Estate and wider area is estimated to employ over 2,500 people in around 1,400 businesses. 6. MTD acquired the KKIE on 10th January 2020 and was a Category 2 party when the fourth consultation took place in June 2020, although MTD was not notified by the Applicant as a Category 2 owner at this stage. MTD was given a presentation by the Applicant on 23rd November 2020 and were afforded an additional period to submit a consultation response prior to the submission of the application. This was submitted on 22nd December 2020. None of the recommendations in that representation were addressed in the Application. 7. MTD has a long-term business plan for the Site which it has already started to implement. MTD wishes to hold and develop its position with the Site to promote both the investment and the tenants’ interests in light of the substantial and increasing demand for industrial and logistics facilities in this area. Such an objective is entirely consistent with the Site’s position and designation as an Employment Area in the Dartford Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan (Regulation 19 Version, February 2021). 8. KKIE is in the south eastern corner of the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) boundary. The Proposed Development as presented in the Application shows that the entirety of KKIE will be removed and redeveloped as is identified in the Parameter Plans (see for example Drawing Reference: LR-PL-APT-ILP-2.19.2 & LR-PL-APT-ILP-2.19.2A). This will be replaced with the Back of House area for Gate 1 of the scheme. 9. At present, there is no agreement in place between MTD and the Applicant for acquisition of the Site. The Applicant has made no effort to acquire the Site by private treaty (other than through the publication of the London Resort Premium) nor engage with MTD on blight/ mitigation and relocation arrangements. Representation Inadequate Assessment of Alternatives 10. The Proposed Development does not benefit from a Development Plan allocation or National Policy Statement support. It is contrary to the Development Plan objectives in relation to the KKIE. It promotes a scale of development that will have profound effects on a significant number of existing businesses without a level of information on deliverability or impact mitigation proportionate to that scale of impact. 11. The Proposed Development will result in the complete removal / redevelopment of the Kent Kraft Industrial Estate. The Environmental Statement ("ES") recognises that the impacts will be major (adverse) significant without mitigation (ES 7.247) including on MTD and its tenants’ interests and businesses. This includes blight on investment, substantial business losses in terms of investment and jobs and local industrial land supply. 12. Given the scale of these effects, avoidance, minimisation and mitigation are essential. The ES is deficient for the purposes of regulation 14(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017: (1) The assessment the alternative options either at all in some cases or at a level of detail proportionate to the scale and significance of these effects including the required comparison of effects. The detailed rationale, including financial modelling and alternative siting (including use of the riverside area) are not provided; (2) The analysis of effects is understated (including, for example, multiplier effects from loss of jobs, specialist supply chains and clustering); (3) The mitigation relied on (ES Table 7.41) is unspecified and wholly inadequate given the nature of the proposed displacement. The Applicant has not prepared or engaged on any form of relocation strategy for KKIE (despite apparent, but unclear, consideration of the need for this in relation to the Manor Way Business Park (ES 4.38)). Basis of the Acquisition and the Compulsory Purchase Order 13. MTD objects to the land acquisition provisions of the DCO based on the following: (i) The powers are a disproportionate and unjustified interference with MTD's rights for the purposes of Section 122 Planning Act 2008 and its ECHR (Article 1) rights given (a) the inadequate compensation arrangements provided for by LRH (b) the nature of the blight caused by the DCO and the inadequacy of the LRH compensation arrangements in relation to it (c) the excessive nature of the temporary possession powers (article 31) in light of the intended approach to deferred vesting (see Statement of Reasons (“SoR”) 6.23 and 6.75) and lack of timing, building protection, advance payment or other safeguards in the DCO drafting. (ii) LRH has not evidenced a compelling case for authorisation of compulsory purchase given: (a) the nature of the project and the affected areas; (b) the scale of unmitigated blight that will be caused by the powers in the circumstances including the absence of any relocation strategy; (c) the inadequacy of the submitted Funding Statement (“FS”), including in relation to the claim at FS 4.6; (d) the inadequate efforts to avoid the use of expropriatory powers through negotiations with affected owners (including the inadequacy of the published London Resort Premium (“LRP”) offer and absence of any decant or relocation strategy). The SoR claims hesitancy to engage by affected parties but illustrates how the Option / LRP proposal terms create an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on affected parties (see SoR 7.19/7.20) which are exacerbated by the DCO drafting. Hearings 14. MTD wishes to be registered as an Interested Party. MTD has a particular interest in attending the following to address the above issues: (i) Any Issue Specific Hearings of relevance. (ii) Compulsory Acquisition Hearings. (iii) Development Consent Order Hearings. 15. We expect the Applicant to respond in full to the shortcomings of the submitted Application as detailed above including detailed feasibility and viability evidence to provide a compelling case for scale of the impacts generated by the inclusion of the Site, the deprivation of MTD of its interest and the unmitigated imposition of blight."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natasha Hunt
"I live locally in Dartford and have lived here all my life. I have seen Dartford change a d grow massively which has its positives and negatives but this is one negative which I can’t stand back and accept. The destruction of this wildlife habitat is now essential or crucial and not something that local people want. The marshland has been left to thrive for many years and as such it has supported over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern. This is not something that can be replaced easily and it deserves to be allowed to flourish without human interference. It is so cool that a critically endangered jumping spider is found so close to where I live but that do money and greed overrules that. We don’t want to look back and regret this."
Non-Statutory Organisations
CBRE on behalf of National Veterinary Services Ltd
"We will want to bring to the attention of the Examining Authority matters relating to four principle aspects of the application: 1. The proposed use of Temporary Powers – Article 31 a) Any use of temporary powers should be limited to areas not intended to be compulsorily acquired. b) The applicant should be obligated to make advance payments when temporary powers are chosen to be used. c) The period over which land may be possessed under temporary powers needs to be limited to 2 years. d) Temporary possession powers should not permit the Applicant to demolish existing buildings. 2. Business Relocation We see no evidence that the Applicant has done anything to address: 1. Re-provision of premises for relocation of occupiers 2. Availability of property at the point of dispossession 3. Sufficient timescale within which to relocate businesses or reinvest in property 3. The London Resort Premium a) The fairness of the terms and conditions proposed b) The need for the offer to be secured within the DCO 4. Generalised Blight a) The impact on the property market (occupier and investor) during the period of uncertainty brought about by publication of the applicants’ proposals b) The lack of any support for most owners during the period of uncertainty"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Phillips
"In the London area, UK and globally we are facing a biodiversity crisis. If we do not pay heed to this the consequences for people and their quality of life will be significant. At the very time that we should be working to maintain and enhance our natural environment we should not even be considering plans like this which will serve to destroy what is a highly biodiverse area. Especially when this area nestles within the London and Thames Estuary conurbation, providing valuable open, natural space. HM Govt has pledged to put the health of the natural environment central in its planning. To do so this application for "The London Resort" must be refused. Changes brought about by more home working, increased online shopping and Brexit will mean more existing commercial "brownfield" sites will become available and surely London Resort Company Holdings will be able to successfully re-purpose one of these so that the leisure facilities they propose can be created without the degradation of biodiversity and the destruction of an important wild area which is close to the homes of so many. I do not live locally but am familiar with the site and the area through sailing activities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Curd
"Once again how are you going to service this park? As a resident of this area have you ever tried to get into swanscombe when the bridge at Dartford is blocked. Or when Bluewater is busy no all you are thinking about is pound notes. The area can not cope with a park on its door step also what about the wildlife that use the marsh."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Garner
"I live in the area and use the Dartford Crossing. My interest is in the points raised during planning as to what effect such a development will have on the residents living in the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rabbi Jeffrey Newman
"I am increasingly concerned about the rapidly deteriorating state of UK’s wildlife and the chain of life from the smallest creatures to the largest. I am an adviser to https://earthcharter.org/ which provides a systemic view of the planet and the interconnectedness of all things. I am also a member of https://faithfortheclimate.org.uk/ which brings together all faiths in support of creation. I am looking therefore at the Proposals here from a national perspective, living in quite another area of London but we are all part of the whole and need to take a holistic view."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Hall
"As a long term resident I am concerned about the growing destruction of Kents history and wildlife. Although part of the area was a brown field site nature has now reclaimed we shouldn't e making the same mistakes from the past as we should now know better. This area is already an Sssi and therefore cherished and developed as a wild and natural sanctuary for future generations."
Other Statutory Consultees
BNP Paribas Real Estate (BNPPRE) (BNP Paribas Real Estate (BNPPRE)) on behalf of Royal Mail Group
"BNPPRE acts on behalf of Royal Mail and whilst our clients do not have an in principle objection to the proposed scheme we are seeking to secure mitigations to protect Royal Mail’s road based operations within its vicinity. Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be detrimentally affected by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. There are 10 operational facilities within 12 miles of this scheme. The additional vehicle movements during the construction and operational phase (approximately 12.5 million visitors per year with Gates 1 and 2 in operation) of the Scheme would have significant potential to be disruptive to Royal Mail’s local road operations. The key arterial routes identified by operational teams as being sensitive are the Dartford Tunnel (all drivers delivering in DA and ME postcodes use this route), A2, A296, M20 J3-6, M26 and M25 J2. Royal Mail wishes to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivering service. Royal Mail requests that: 1. the DCO includes specific requirements that during the construction phase Royal Mail is consulted by London Resort Company Holding or its contractors at least one month in advance on any proposed road closures / diversions / alternative access arrangements, hours of working, and the content of the final CTMP, and 2. The final CTMP includes a mechanism to inform major road users (including Royal Mail) about works affecting the local highways network (with particular regard to Royal Mail’s distribution facilities near the DCO application boundary as identified above). Royal Mail reserves its position to object to the DCO application if the above requests are not adequately addressed. Contacts: () of Royal Mail’s Legal Services Team () of BNP Paribas Real Estate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russell Caston
"That main points I will wish to make are in relation to the traffic proposals made within the application"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Fabricant
"I was shocked to hear some time ago, that a Disney type theme park is proposed on the Swanscombe Peninsula. Swanscombe is a unique mix of coastal habitats, grasslands, and wetlands, and is home to a range of rare and endangered species of bees, spiders, invertebrates, reptiles and bats. The theme park is opposed by the RSPB, due to its negative impact on birdlife, and Natural England has recently declared it a Site of Special Scientific Interest.(SSSI) Although I do not live in the area, I am aware from friends in Dartford that it is not welcomed by residents. It will not provide long term employment and visitors will not be doing business in the local area.eg shopping, visiting local cafes and restaurants;on the contrary they will simply be travelling to the Park and back, on the motorway. Is a fun fair really more important than the awe and wonder of nature? I think it is disgraceful and bad judgement for a theme park to be built in this area, where so much endangered and rare wildlife will be destroyed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Miller
"I am the owner of [Redacted]. I am joint owner of [Redacted] with Mr Barry Miller. (Within the Development Area). I receive rental income from the above properties. The company that rents the properties above is RAD printing Ltd. I am a shareholder and have a 50% share of that company. I am also company secretary. The managing director is Mr Barry Miller, who owns the other 50% of the shares. I would like to make a Written Representation when the Examination begins as I have an interest in the future development of the land and property within the DCO."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Martin Bradley
"I am concerned at the threat posed to Swanscombe Marshes by the proposed London Resort theme park. This is an area of exceptional biodiversity, which is valued as a freely accessible, open, wild, quiet and restorative space by people across Greater London and beyond. The rough, 'unpretty' character of much of the area should not be taken as an excuse to build over the land. On the contrary, its complex history and industrial archaeology have created a positive legacy, in terms of the varied habitats and landscapes within the area threatened by the developers. This is a rare and precious place. As so many of the UK's red-listed species decline or dwindle away to extinction, it is especially disturbing to see how many would suffer extreme negative impact from the proposed development. Near the top of the list is the Distinguished Jumping Spider, which risks being reduced to a single UK site by the proposed redevelopment. The threat to Swanscombe's Nightingales, a beloved but endangered bird that is central to English culture, music and poetry, is a cause for further dismay. Rare insect species that have found a haven at Swanscombe are too many to list here. Of its flora, the prsence of the wonderful but critically endangered Man Orchid (Orchis anthropophora) should alone be enough to secure protection of the site in its present rewilded state. A comparable case to Swanscombe is Rainham Marshes on the Essex side of the Thames, which was proposed for a giant theme park some years ago, and has instead become a treasured and much-visited nature reserve in the hands of the RSPB. Let Swanscombe Marshes flourish as Rainham Marshes have flourished. To conclude, I have read the developers' own statement of intent for the site. This is wholly unconvincing in terms both of protecting the character of the site, and safeguarding the future of the species and habitats which have rightly earned its designation as an SSS1."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sota Solutions Ltd
"The is an amazing opportunity for the local community and I would like that the planning consent be granted and the local community members to be able to gain employment but also that local companies are also given the opportunity to participate in the construction and supply of goods and services as a condition of the planning permission being granted. There are lots of smaller world class companies in Kent that could provide goods and services and it is the smaller companies that often get overlooked, but who can also provide world class services to projects like this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Kelly
"The main points I intend to make will be positive and in favour of the resort as I am convinced it will be good progress not only for the local area but for the economy and the country ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steven Newman
"I support the proposal as it will create jobs and an attraction that is readily accessible by public transport."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Swan Doors and Windows Ltd
"We are very concerned about the ability to preserve the jobs and livelihoods presently supported by the company, if forced to relocate due to the London Resort scheme. Although LRCH has put forward an enhanced compensation package on certain terms, our concern relates to the time that will be available to find, secure and relocate to alternative premises. If this time is insufficient, the jobs and livelihoods supported by the company will be lost and this goes beyond compensation for the closure of the business. The compulsory purchase process provides a minimum of only three months to relocate which is not sufficient to find, secure and relocate a business to alternative premises. We believe a realistic minimum is 12 months and suggest that LRCH should be allowing this level of flexibility to allow businesses to relocate successfully and preserve existing jobs and livelihoods."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Gateley Hamer Limited on behalf of Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited
"Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Eastman
"This needs to go ahead as it will bring jobs to this part of Kent"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Hilsden
"Personal. I have lived locally to the Swanscombe Peninsular for 50 years, and have spent many happy hours wandering through its wilderness, under the open skies, losing myself daydreaming among the reeds, just standing and listening to the great variety of bird calls, and seeing the way the scrub and wetlands change as the seasons pass. I never cease to marvel how this little triangle hosts such a wide spectrum of wildlife, and yet it has all sprung up just in a few decades and is so near to one of the most densely populated parts of the UK. Once out on the grassland or on the foreshore, you could be miles from anywhere, certainly not on the borders of metropolitan London! The site has rejuvenated right under the noses of heavy industry, wildlife has quietly gone about its business, and left to itself, undisturbed has created a beautiful interconnected mosaic of different habitats. Geography. It is not surprising. Just a quick glance at Google satellite maps will show any observer, that Swanscombe peninsular is the last patch of green on the south bank of the Thames between Dartford marshes, which are heavily used by recreation, and Milton Marshes. That’s 11 miles of coastal marshes completely given over to development, industry and warehousing. Where are the species supposed to go? No wonder Swanscombe marshes has become such a sink for species and has rewilded so quickly. They have no where else left to go! Family experience. I have been watching the threat of this development with my family and friends with trepidation, we were devasted when we first heard the news of a resort being developed there. As if we do not have enough places to go for entertainment! Bird Life. In two hours on the 5th March 2021, I counted 47 species of birds, amongst which were the Marsh harriers – regular as clockwork, always there, and 21 Cettis warblers! For such a small site, it tells you the quality of the scrub, reedbed and swampy conditions, with plenty of invertebrates. The same day, watching a short-eared owl quarter the flood defences, indicates of course the ready availability of small mammals. No wonder Natural England have recommended Swanscombe be declared a Site of Special Scientific Interest! This small patch hosts more breeding bird species than Rainham Marshes (a carefully managed RSPB site), including 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern. Invertebrates. I am not particularly knowledgeable about plants or invertebrates, but discovering that the peninsular is home to over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, shows what an incredibly rare site this small piece of land is, where historical human interaction has created such a variety of habitat – making up for the tremendous loss of habitat right along the Thames Gateway region. To learn that the Distinguished jumping spider is only found here and one other place in the UK, I am amazed that there is still talk of building yet another theme park in this already congested part of the south east. It is an exquisite and vital sanctuary to wildlife, and MUST be kept away from developers, and the whole site should be handed over to be made a national reserve. What a gem this would be. Appeal. The Government website states: “The Prime Minister is committing today (Monday 28 September) to protect 30% of the UK’s land by 2030”. Boris Johnson signed the Leaders Pledge for Nature at a virtual United Nations event on the same day. HE NEEDS TO SHOW HE MEANS IT. This unique treasure so close to London has met every single criteria to be made a SSSI and deserves full protection from development. Can the Government please make the right decision, and instead of mouthing platitudes, act on its responsibilities, show leadership and make this a positive step in showing a way out of the environmental crisis."
Other Statutory Consultees
Thames Water
"Thames Water Utilities Limited (“TWUL”) is appointed under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Water Industry Act 1991 (“WIA”) as water and sewerage undertaker for the Thames region, which includes water only at the location of the London Resort. In principle, TWUL does not object to the London Resort scheme but has limited capacity in this area. It will be a challenge to facilitate the proposed demand in the timeframes suggested without having a detrimental impact on our existing customers. TWUL needs to work closely with London Resort to alleviate these concerns. TWUL owns a number of water mains and other apparatus throughout the land that will be affected by the scheme and which will either need to be diverted or protected as a result. TWUL does not believe that the provisions of the draft Development Consent Order (“the Order”) satisfactorily protect TWUL’s existing and future apparatus and ability to comply with its statutory duties or exercise its statutory powers. TWUL also requires clarity in relation to certain provisions, and parity with provisions afforded to other undertakers under the Order. TWUL proposes amendments to specific provisions in order to alleviate these concerns. TWUL has concerns about the clarity of Article 14 in Part 3 of the draft Order, as to whether the Applicant is seeking cost sharing as highway authority delivering major highway works in existing streets. TWUL has proposed amendments to the Protective Provisions in Part 1 of Schedule 11 and is currently negotiating with the Applicant, however an agreement has not been formalised. These amendments are as follows (including, but not exclusively): TWUL proposes an increase to the notice period in various provisions from 28 to 56 days and requests an amendment to require the Applicant to consult and agree technical solutions before serving notice. The definitions in paragraph 2 should be amended to fully reflect all apparatus that TWUL owns or could own that would need to be protected under the Order, and to capture how alternative apparatus should be characterised. TWUL requires notice of any works that could impact on TWUL apparatus, and not just works authorized under clause 6(2) and requests an amendment which obliges the Applicant to assess impact and propose mitigation. TWUL has proposed additional words in clause 6(3) to reflect the limitations of our statutory powers. TWUL requires an amendment to clause 8(6) to ensure the Applicant obtains TWUL consent before working on TWUL existing or future apparatus. TWUL proposes an amendment to paragraph 9(1) to ensure consistency with recovery of expenses, as per the WIA section 185. TWUL has proposed alternative wording to clause 10(1) in relation to losses suffered in consequence of works authorised under the Order or otherwise. TWUL has proposed a new clause (clause 12) for access to apparatus and land that is materially obstructed. TWUL has proposed a new clause (clause 13) to clarify that if TWUL uses its powers, it will do so under its own statutory powers and not through the Order."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Avison Young on behalf of The Galley Hill Partnership
"Gardia Limited (Co. Regn. No 3865810) of [, [] and Patricia Ann Flanagan of [] trading as The Galley Hill Partnership, holds the freehold ownership of the Galley Hill Industrial Estate. The Galley Hill Industrial Estate falls within the Development Consent Order red-line, comprising plot numbers []. All interests and rights in Galley Hill Industrial Estate are currently identified to be acquired through the Development Consent Order (DCO). It is identified as required for works number 10b (London Resort Academy). As a relevant interested party, our client requests the Planning Inspectorate to remove the Galley Hill Industrial Estate from the DCO red line. A summary of the reasons are set out below: 1) The Galley Hill Partnership land is not required to deliver the scheme as the academy can be delivered elsewhere on the project site, such as within the staff accommodation within plot 250, or within the main project site. Until recently, the promoter had confirmed that the Galley Hill Industrial Estate was not required to deliver the Project, and the DCO documents do not explain why this has changed. 2) The economic benefits of the project are not sufficiently sizeable nor certain to justify compulsory acquisition, particularly when balanced against the likely loss of existing jobs and businesses at Galley Hill Industrial Estate. In addition, our client requests the removal of the Galley Hill Industrial Estate from the DCO red line as expediently as possible as there is a real risk that our client’s property will continue to be blighted by the Scheme but that the Scheme will never be delivered, or delivery will be significantly delayed. We consider the following key factors are likely to prevent or delay delivery: 3) The funding statement does not provide confirmation that the promoter has the funding available to deliver the project including the costs of land acquisition following confirmation of the DCO, and therefore does not comply with the DCO requirements and guidance. 4) The designation of large areas of the project site as a Site of Special Scientific Interest by Natural England further reduces the chances of the project being delivered. This representation summarises our client’s initial views on the DCO application. Our client reserves the right to produce further evidence on these points once the Examination commences and in accordance with the Examination timetable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thomas Marshall
"Dear Sir or Madam, The site at Swancombe is a home to a very wide variety of endangered species, from birds such as nightingales, to flowers like man orchids, to rare bees, and the ultra-rare distinguished jumping spider, and the tentacled lagoon worm. A place of such outstanding significance to wildlife should be protected, and its creatures valued and celebrated, not shovelled aside. It is not a habitat of which we have a plentiful supply or which, I believe, could be readily replicated elsewhere. This means that it contains species which are found in very few other places in the UK. The list of rare species is impressive and would be the envy of nature reserves around the country. It has been designated by Natural England as a SSSI. For good reason. The country as a whole needs to value the wildlife and unique habitats on our shores. The study entitled "Rationale for the SSSI Designation of the Swanscombe Peninsular" has been produced by collaboration of several wildlife charities that have seen it as deeply important. It has gone into great depth and even a cursory look would be enough to see why they have deemed the place worth protecting. It is worth reading in detail and considering with respect. For most of this wildlife, the moving to another location is not a viable option. As I understand it, building here will mean the ruining of this habitat. It will mean not just displacement but starkly result in death and the loss of species. Given all the above, the morally right, sensible and sustainable option would seem to be to recognise the value of the site, protect it with stringent legislation in perpetuity, and find a site that is not of high wildlife value in which to build this theme park. Surely this should be obvious and should have been taken into account right at the start. Otherwise, it would seem an unwise waste of money and time. Perhaps a location can be found where there are abandoned factories or office blocks that are true brownfield sites that have not become wildlife havens. There is surely room for this somewhere better, so that this place can continue to be home and refuge for our wildlife, and a place to be proud of."
Members of the Public/Businesses
V Stojanovik
"I live in []. We have the Legoland resort here. At the peak times - bank holiday weekends, half-term, and weekends in the summer holidays traffic entering and leaving Legoland at the beginning and end of the day can cause gridlock for hours in the area between Windsor, Bray and Bracknell. This is well known in the area. I expect the lessons of Legoland to be learnt for London Resort. I fear that there are not enough parking spaces for the staff (who are likely to need to be at work before public transport has got going) and visitors. I also fear that car occupancy and the use of public transport are over-estimated by the applicant. Furthermore, I know that the existing Dartford Crossing often also has long waiting times. It is inconceivable to me that the existing road network, especially the strategic road network, could cope with the additional traffic for the London Resort and it must be the case that the Lower Thames Crossing will need to be open before the London Resort and this should be a condition of any consent. It may even be that the Lower Thames Crossing will need to be upgraded to accommodate this traffic as it may not have been designed for it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
A Brunner
"Dear team, this is to ask your remedies / proposal on wildlife and nature that will be detrimental affected by the building process. How are you dealing with those issues? It’s a question quite a few of us are interested in, particularly in times of climate change and awareness of importance of nature preservation. My next question is concerning traffic - again, local people and wildlife affected by processes. I look forward to hearing back soon, Kind Regards Annabell"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wellers Law Group LLP on behalf of Abraham Uche Kingsley, AUTOCENTRIC LTD
"BC080001 Outline Objections of Abraham Uche Kingsley, AUTOCENTRIC LTD Introduction 1. I am the Director of Autocentric Ltd of Unit C0, Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of Autocentric Ltd 2. Autocentric Ltd services and repairs vehicles. 3. I have a rent Unit C0 from AGB Cars Ltd. 4. AGB Cars Ltd work closely with both me and the other sub-tenants, who are also Interested Parties and filing Written Representations. We all have a good working relationship and often cross-refer work. 5. I am very concerned that if the land that I use is subject to a CPO, LRCH will not find suitable premises for all the sub-tenants at the same location and for a reasonable price. This is the reason why I sub-let from AGB Cars Ltd. 6. Because of the nature of our work, we require a brownfield site away from residential properties. 7. Our location is in a very good spot close to Dartford Tunnel and the rent is very reasonable. 8. If we were to move from this site, we would incur significant losses which will not be fully compensated for. 9. Compulsorily purchasing our major base is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. Policy Position and Funding 10. I note that there is no National Policy Statement that covers the nature of the London Resort development proposal. Whilst other policies may apply to certain elements of the scheme (e.g. transport), there is no government drive to bring forward this development. It appears to be not a project of national significance but rather a highly speculative private commercial development. 11. The funding position is opaque. The corporate structures and accountability should be examined in detail and I am continuing to research this position and understand that the group company, M S Al Humaidi Ltd. is now offshore in the Isle of Man after accepting a £5m government loan. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Al Humaidi has only committed to funding the project until planning permission is granted (if it is). Once that is achieved he will seek other investors to cover the estimated £3.5billion needed to build the park. Where my business is due to be compulsorily acquired, it is essential to know that the ultimate project will be deliverable to the quality claimed and with appropriate mitigation and compensation. This is far from clear at present. I also have doubts that a COVID19 assessment has been properly carried out which demonstrates that the project is viable in the future. Environmental Effects 12. I also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. I will object in detail in respect of the traffic impacts in the locality. Dartford and the Dartford Crossing is already heavily congested with industrial lorries and other traffic. I note that Highways England have stated that Dartford Tunnel is “one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s road network. It is not viable for the London Resort to be so close to the Dartford Tunnel.” Dartford also has, according to Public Health England, one of the highest percentage of deaths attributable to long term exposure to particulate air pollution. The introduction of the London Resort into this area will only cause increased traffic delays and increased pollution. 13. I support the position of Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife and the RSPB that this theme park is expected to destroy 76ha of priority habitat which is a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. The Estuary has a unique climate which is more continental than the rest of the UK and the 620 acres of marshes is very tranquil. I often see families with their children, walking their dogs at the marches along the number of public footpaths. Building over this area of natural habitat will unacceptably destroy many habitats and species of importance. Reference is made to Swanscombe Peninsula being a largely unused brownfield site. This is simply incorrect. There has in my view been no proper environmental assessment and/or HRA. I am worried too about the impact of construction works such as accommodating workers and traffic implications. Conclusion 14. I object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of our base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable and/or viable; (iii) if built, the effects on traffic congestion and pollution would be severe and (iv) the ecological harm done would be unacceptable. I reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. Dated: 31 March 2021"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Eastman
"I am wanting to ask for this area to be preserved as it is. It’s a beautiful place, a haven for wildlife & people alike. Going there when you need some peace & quiet is a godsend & shouldn’t be taken away, we are losing too many areas of beauty & destroying valuable wildlife habit. Thanks"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Amateur Entomologists' Society
"We wish to object to the proposal to locate the proposed “London Resort” on the Swanscombe Peninsula. A large part of the Peninsula is categorised as Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL). From our perspective as an entomological organisation, we regard this habitat type as extremely important, given that it supports many vulnerable or endangered invertebrates. OMHPDL has developed on a number of other sites in the Thames Estuary but some of the most important of these have been lost or have come under threat from recent changes in land use. Owing to the microclimate and the flower-rich characteristics of OMHPDL, together with the relatively warm and sunny climate of the Thames Estuary, the site sustains various invertebrates that have a mainly Mediterranean or southern European distribution and are therefore very localised in the UK. Many of the site’s terrestrial invertebrates, a total of 250, are listed as species of conservation concern. These include Attulus distinguendus (the Distinguished jumping spider), which is Critically Endangered according to IUCN criteria. There are also aquatic invertebrates of high conservation value, including Alkmaria romijni (the Tentacled lagoon-worm), the habitat of which is protected under the Wildlife & Countryside Act (1981). Additionally the site supports many plants and vertebrates of conservation concern. While appreciating that the development of a resort on a suitable site could provide an important economic stimulus, we strongly believe that this particular site warrants protection because of its outstanding importance for overall biodiversity and for particular endangered and other vulnerable species. We therefore support its designation, as of 11th March 2021, subject to confirmation, as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), incorporating the existing Baker’s Hole SSSI. Taking account of available evidence, we do not believe the effects of site development could realistically be mitigated by attempting to translocate any of the invertebrate species that it supports."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Nelson
"I walk here every day with my daughter I [] no longer drive, it really has helped me Greatly the last few years being amongst the wonderful nature"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Critchell
"I would like to make the following points in my representation: As usual, nature and wildlife are being expended for short-term economic greed which will never stop until every last inch of this planet is covered in concrete. Living locally to this site I am deeply distressed that the positive benefits to my wellbeing through exercise and being able to commune with nature will be taken away alongside the sites intrinsic value and importance to nature which has just as much right to live without destruction on this planet as anything else. The south east of England is already drowning under ever increasing traffic and associated air pollution (a recent nationwide study showed this borough as having areas with the worst pollution in the country) and development, and there are fewer and fewer spaces where we can go to escape and heal. The coronavirus pandemic has shown us how important our mental health is and highlighted the scientifically proven huge benefits to mental health that time out in nature provides. The Swanscombe peninsula gives this in spades. This site, a unique open mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands, has been identified by Natural England as meeting the criteria for SSSI designation for good reason. It supports over 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider which is found on only one other site in the UK. Let's take a moment to let that sink in. Swanscombe is actually home to a plethora of nationally rare and endangered bees, spiders, beetles, wasps and a host of other invertebrates that make the site of national importance. 15 red-listed Birds of Conservation Concern and 12 Species of Principal Importance - including Marsh harriers, Bearded tit, Nightingales and Black redstart, rely on the site for breeding. Will they find somewhere else to breed or will those sites also have been built on? If they can't raise young these species will continue to decline and become extinct. 13 nationally scarce vascular plant species have been found at Swanscombe, including 5 red-listed species such as the Man orchid alongside locally important populations of reptiles, bats, Water vole and Otter. The planet is at a tipping point with wildlife populations crashing globally. At what point do we say enough is enough and actually start valuing nature, protecting wildlife sites, expanding them and finding new ways to life in harmony with nature? What other warning signs do we need to be given to know projects like these need to be stopped if they are set to ruin and degrade such important sites for nature?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Luxton
"While I cannot disagree that the proposed development will bring many positive economic benefits to the area, I have very grave concerns concerning the traffic modelling, climate and environmental impacts on this area. Based on my reading of the documents the traffic modelling is wholly inadequate, particularly in light of the proposed lower thames crossing, and the combined effect of traffic on the A2. Residents in both the Gravesham, Dartford and Thurrock region suffer due to the congestion and pollution caused volume of traffic on the A2, A13, and M25. At peak time journeys from Medway to Dartford can take one hour, a distance of 17 miles. The A2 at Pepperhill is notorious for congestion so a major interchange here is difficult to comprehend. I look forward to detailed and transparent consultation in this regard using up-to-date information to inform those discussions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gateley Hamer on behalf of Anglo-European Developments GB Limited
"Dear Sirs, I write on behalf of Anglo-European Developments GB Limited, freehold owner of parcels 83, 106, 110, 114, 116, 117, 132, 162, 163, 164, 168, 180, 182, 193 and 199 within the draft DCO, and beneficiary of various restrictions and rights over other land within the draft DCO, as referenced in the Applicant's Book of Reference. Anglo-European obtained planning consent (DA/06/01350/FUL) to develop its site, known as the Interchange site, on Lower Road, in 2009. That planning consent, which provided for the development of 78,000sqft of industrial / warehousing, is extant by virtue of the fact that Anglo-European carried out works to infill the lagoon that previously existed, in accordance with the consent. The works to infill the lagoon commenced in 2012 and Anglo-European had intended to continue to develop out the site in accordance with its consent, and instructed agents to secure tenants for the units. In the meantime the London Resorts proposals (or the London Paramount Entertainment Resort proposals, as they were at the time) were announced and it became commonly known that compulsory acquisition powers would be promoted over the Anglo-European site; this put paid to the Anglo-European development because prospective tenants were no longer prepared to commit to the site. Evidence of this has been provided to the Applicant's agents and I understand that Anglo-European engaged with the original London Resorts team in 2013, and again in 2015, but no offer to acquire the site has ever been made and Anglo-European have remained frustrated in their ambitions to develop the site, having faced nine years of uncertainty. Anglo-European object to the inclusion of compulsory acquisition powers within the draft DCO for the following reasons: 1 - Anglo-European disagree with London Resorts' statement at paragraph 6.3 of its Statement of Reasons that 'the development of the London Resort could not be achieved without the use of compulsory acquisition powers'. It is unclear how such a statement can be substantiated when the Applicant has not made offers to acquire a number of the interests that it requires. The Applicant states at 6.74 of its Statement of Reasons that it has, and continues to, make 'reasonable attempts to acquire necessary land and rights by agreement'. In the case of Anglo-European that statement is incorrect and it is notable that Section 7 of the Statement of Reasons makes no reference to negotiations with Anglo-European. Anglo-European is willing to treat with the Applicant and it contends that the Applicant is premature in seeking compulsory acquisition powers. 2 - The compelling case in the public interest is not made. The Applicant has stated in its Statement of Reasons that 'compulsory acquisition of land and rights in land is necessary to enable the Applicant to realise the significant benefits and deliver the Proposed Development'. However, not only is the development unsupported by a National Policy Statement, but it is also noteworthy that in the 13 years since the DCO regime was established, no other purely commercial development has been promoted through it, and this would be the first example of a private developer benefitting from compulsory acquisition powers for a scheme that is not supported by a National Policy Statement. The social, economic and environmental benefits that the Applicant claims will be achieved through the delivery of the entertainment resort are uncertain at best and it is difficult to comprehend the basis on which the Secretary of State should enable a leisure developer to compulsorily acquire private interests in land for commercial gain, for a purpose that is unsupported in national planning policy terms. 3 - The compulsory acquisition of Angle-European's interest would interfere with its rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention in a manner that is unlawful. The level of interference with its site, which is proposed to be developed in a manner that will deliver economic betterment, is disproportionate to the benefits that the London Resorts scheme will deliver, to the extent that the compulsory acquisition would not strike a fair balance. As already stated, Anglo-European stand ready and willing to listen to any offer that the Applicant might make, to reflect both the market value of its interest and the fact that it has, since the publication of the London Resort proposals, been unable to develop its site and derive a rental income in the manner that it would have done in the 'no scheme world'. Until London Resorts has exhausted reasonable efforts to acquire my client's interest, and those of all other third party landowners, it would be wholly inappropriate for compulsory acquisition powers to be granted. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Stott MRICS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Duke
"The size of the development is too big for the local towns. Whilst the idea of the resort has benefits such as employment, the scale is cannot be borne by the locality. There is insufficient infrastructure - examples: • The existing road infrastructure is already over capacity and a lack space to expand to provide for both local traffic and resort access. • Rail - Swanscombe Station was originally considered out of ‘the equation’. How does it now fit in – suitability for consideration and impact on local community. • Water supplies – would involve massive increase – capacity? • Waste disposal of all types – ‘domestic’ as well as commercial • Medical facilities – hospital capacity – already stretched Physical and Environmental Concerns: • The resort is being built on a flood plain • Pollution from the build , traffic, waste • The increase in air pollution is of great concern – the resort is within boroughs that are already ranked amongst the highest in the UK • Light pollution – 24/7 light from the resort will impact on the local communities and on species that have been stated to retain their habitats, such as bird populations. • Height of proposed buildings would impact residents of Swanscombe and is incongruous with its ancient heritage • Proposed footpaths are likely to encourage resort visitors to park in communities with consequences to local residents • The human impact on the existing communities, including, but not limited to: mental health and physical wellbeing,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Hart
"Given the importance of the Swanscombe Peninsula for plants and animals such as the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), it should not be considered as a viable site for the development of a theme park. Clearly the ecological value, which cannot be replaced, should outweigh the need for a theme park in that particular area. Now more than ever before we have a responsibility to protect our important wildlife sites from being lost."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Laurent
"Destruction of the wildlife on Swanscombe Marshes"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wellers Law Group LLP on behalf of Balbir Singh S&S Freight Global Ltd
"BC080001 Outline Objections of Balbir Singh S & S Global Freight Ltd Introduction I am the Director of S & S Global Freight Ltd, Unit B4 Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe DA10 0PP. Nature of S&S Global Freight Ltd 1. S&S Global Freight Ltd deal with the storage and transport of goods 2. I lease Unit B4 from AGB Cars Ltd. 3. I am very concerned that if the land we lease is subject to a CPO, LRCH will not find suitable premises at the same location and for a reasonable price. 4. Because of the nature of our work, we require a brownfield site away from residential properties. 5. Our location is in a very good spot close to Dartford Tunnel and the rent is very reasonable. 6. If we were to move from this site, we would incur significant losses which will not be fully compensated for. 7. Compulsorily purchasing our major base is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. Policy Position and Funding 8. I note that there is no National Policy Statement that covers the nature of the London Resort development proposal. Whilst other policies may apply to certain elements of the scheme (e.g. transport), there is no government drive to bring forward this development. It appears to be not a project of national significance but rather a highly speculative private commercial development. 9. The funding position is opaque. The corporate structures and accountability should be examined in detail and I am continuing to research this position and understand that the group company, M S Al Humaidi Ltd. is now offshore in the Isle of Man after accepting a £5m government loan. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Al Humaidi has only committed to funding the project until planning permission is granted (if it is). Once that is achieved he will seek other investors to cover the estimated £3.5billion needed to build the park. Where my business is due to be compulsorily acquired, it is essential to know that the ultimate project will be deliverable to the quality claimed and with appropriate mitigation and compensation. This is far from clear at present. I also have doubts that a COVID19 assessment has been properly carried out which demonstrates that the project is viable in the future. Environmental Effects 10. I also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. I will object in detail in respect of the traffic impacts in the locality. Dartford and the Dartford Crossing is already heavily congested with industrial lorries and other traffic. I note that Highways England have stated that Dartford Tunnel is “one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s road network. It is not viable for the London Resort to be so close to the Dartford Tunnel.” Dartford also has, according to Public Health England, one of the highest percentage of deaths attributable to long term exposure to particulate air pollution. The introduction of the London Resort into this area will only cause increased traffic delays and increased pollution. 11. I support the position of Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife and the RSPB that this theme park is expected to destroy 76ha of priority habitat which is a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. The Estuary has a unique climate which is more continental than the rest of the UK and the 620 acres of marshes is very tranquil. I often see families with their children, walking their dogs at the marches along the number of public footpaths. Building over this area of natural habitat will unacceptably destroy many habitats and species of importance. Reference is made to Swanscombe Peninsula being a largely unused brownfield site. This is simply incorrect. There has in my view been no proper environmental assessment and/or HRA. I am worried too about the impact of construction works such as accommodating workers and traffic implications. Conclusion 12. I object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of our base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable and/or viable; (iii) if built, the effects on traffic congestion and pollution would be severe and (iv) the ecological harm done would be unacceptable. I reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. Dated: 31 March 2021"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Quod on behalf of Blueco Limited
"We are instructed by Blueco, the owners of Bluewater (‘the Owners’), to register as an Interested Party in the examination of the London Resort application for development consent. We submitted representations to the London Resort Statutory Consultation on 19 October 2020 and at that time set out our concerns about the lack of information and clarity on the impacts and controls in respect of the resort. We have now reviewed the submitted information and outline the principal matters that we may wish to make in relation to the application. As set out in our representations to the Statutory Consultation, we noted that despite Bluewater being a major shopping centre destination in the UK, it is not immune to the changes in the retail sector such as the growth of online shopping and changing customer demands. Even before the impact of COVID 19, the Owners were exploring options to respond to the restructuring retail sector by reinforcing the retail offer and introducing other uses including leisure, hotels, employment and residential. This could potentially overlap with the London Resort project, specifically for attractions outside the payline. We note at page 72 of the Applicants Planning Statement (‘PS’) that the scheme has been revised ‘to provide to local communities and businesses a more diverse range of entertainment and amenities outside the park gates’ and Table 8.1 in the PS outlines a total of 26,695 sq.m of retail and leisure floorspace is proposed outside the payline. This comprises food and beverage facilities (including bars, restaurants and cafes), a cinema, music venue, two retail units and a conference centre. Paragraphs 8.171 - 8.179 notes that these uses intend to attract visitors during the afternoon and evening from the local area and are necessary as they have an intrinsic locational and functional connection to enable successful operation of the London Resort. The attractions proposed outside the payline have the potential to become a free-standing destination which would more likely compete with local leisure and retail destinations, including Bluewater. A high level sequential test and impact assessment is referred to and this will need to be interrogated, along with the assumptions made in the Retail and Leisure Impact Assessment to understand the potential impacts to Bluewater and established town centres. The Owners are currently reviewing the transport impacts of the London Resort. To inform this review, clarification has been sought from the Applicants about the potential impacts and mitigation on public transport. Subject to this review, it may be necessary to provide a detailed response on this matter. In summary, the Owners intend to make representations to cover: • The proposed facilities outside the payline and how this impacts Bluewater • The application of the sequential test and impact assessment in respect of town centre uses. • Subject to further information, transport impacts and mitigation."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
British Arachnological Society
"Our representation will comprise a single, short document about the value of the proposed development site for spiders, and particularly for species of conservation concern. Please see attached"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Weightmans LLP on behalf of British Transport Police Authority
"Representations for British Transport Police Authority (BTPA) The London Resort DCO (BC080001) Our Ref. 9008076-901385/6571 The BTPA has belatedly learnt of the application for the London Resort DCO, by virtue of a Section 56 Notice dated 16/02/2021 (receipt of which was delayed). Weightmans were instructed by the BTPA on 30/03/2021 to make representations to the DCO. Under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, the BTPA are responsible for providing an effective police force for the railways. It is both a prescribed statutory consultee and a party with interests in land under the Planning Act 2008 / Regulations. There has been an apparent failure to consult adequately or at all with the BTPA under Chapter 2, Part 5 of the Act. We are making internal enquiries but thus far there is no evidence of pre-application consultation. The BTPA provides vital policing operations via direct service agreements with rail operators. Under such an agreement and associated leases, the BTPA provides significant policing operations from Ebbsfleet International to HS1 Limited for infrastructure/railways within the area of the DCO. Ebbsfleet is a major commuter hub (including international passengers), with a car park accommodating 6000 cars. Numerous policing teams exceeding 30 officers/detectives operate from Ebbsfleet, which also enables improved responses to HS2 operations. It is essential to maintain a visible and adequate police presence at this location and to avoid disturbance to police facilities/operations. The DCO scheme for this nationally significant resort (a first) will impact policing operations and infrastructure at Ebbsfleet International; BTPA’s arrangements with HS1 Limited and ability to police in the DCO area. Passenger numbers and policing demands would intensify if the scheme is consented. Regrettably no pre-application opportunity was afforded to the BTPA to: - (i) evaluate the impacts of the DCO on BTPA’s policing operations and rail infrastructure; (ii) make any representations as to disturbance to infrastructure and operational policing; increased demands for infrastructure and policing capacity; risk of escalation of crime or incidents associated with the DCO scheme; (iii) to make constructive suggestions for mitigation of impacts – e.g. adjustments to the design/layout/phasing/security or any other element of the scheme; the form of the Order or mitigation through panning gain. If consented, unless carefully identified and mitigated including at design stages, the scheme may have potential adverse impacts on policing during construction and throughout its life leading to an increase in incidents (e.g. passenger safety and fatalities) and crime (e.g. violent crime or risk to more vulnerable users of rail services). Impacts on crime and perception of crime are material planning considerations, mitigation for which must begin at outline design stages. The BTPA have not had this opportunity. We note the DCO application has been accepted but strongly urge the applicant to engage with the BTPA as a prescribed consultee and a party with interests in land. We reserve our client’s position entirely as to further representations including at examination given that the pre-application process has apparently not been complied with vis a vis the BTPA."
Members of the Public/Businesses
BTF Partnership
"BTF Partnership are instructed to act on behalf of various freeholders and leaseholders affected by the NSIP. As a general rule, authority to acquire land compulsorily should only be sought as part of an order granting development consent if attempts to acquire by agreement fail. Currently we consider the level of engagement has been inadequate. It is a requirement to offer advice and assistance to affected occupiers in respect of their relocation and providing details of available relocation properties where appropriate. The Applicant has failed to adequately assist with relocation which we believe will result in the unnecessary extinguishment of business directly affected. The Applicant has failed to secure replacement environmental mitigation land and the project would directly affect circa 250 acres of land designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The applicant must satisfy the test that there is a compelling case in the public interest for land to be acquired compulsorily. The Applicant has failed to meet the statutory requirements, in particular, the statutory consultation carried out by the Applicant was inadequate."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Buglife- The Invertebrate Conservation Trust
"Buglife welcomes the opportunity to make representations on proposals for the London Resort NSIP application. Impact on Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and nationally important habitats: • The Swanscombe Peninsula was recently notified as the ‘Swanscombe Peninsula Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Kent’ by Natural England, following the enlargement of the Bakers Hole SSSI under section 28C (Enlargement) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981 on 11th March 2021.This notification is with immediate effect, and a consultation is currently underway. Natural England note the “open mosaic habitat on previously developed land and traditional estuarine habitat which connects Ebbsfleet Valley to the southern shore of the River Thames between Dartford and Gravesend”, the value of the complex habitat mosaic and the nationally important assemblage of invertebrates that the site supports. Natural England have undertaken a thorough analysis of the significant biodiversity interest of the Swanscombe Peninsula and deemed it of national significance . This notification follows a review of the growing evidence that has come to light as the application has progressed. • The London Resort proposals would lead to the direct loss of over 100ha of the SSSI and indirect impacts on much of the remainder as a result of disturbance, impacts on site hydrology, light pollution, the potential introduction of inappropriate management and the fragmentation of remaining habitats. These indirect impacts will also impact the Botany Marsh Local Wildlife Site (LWS). The development would be a significant blow to biodiversity conservation within the Thames Estuary, which has suffered from the progressive loss of invertebrate rich habitats associated with Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL) and coastal habitats through widespread development, as outlined in Buglife’s State of Brownfields in the Thames Gateway report . The precedent set by losing over 100ha of nationally important habitat makes the London Resort proposals wholly inappropriate for the Swanscombe Peninsula. • The value of the Swanscombe Peninsula has been acknowledged for a number of years, with the site identified in the Natural England funded ‘All of a Buzz in the Thames Gateway’ project in 2008 as having high potential to support nationally rare or scarce invertebrate species. The recent campaign for the site to be designated as a SSSI was necessarily later as for the first time full invertebrate survey data was made public as part of the London Resort public consultation process. • The Swanscombe Peninsula supports a unique mosaic of coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands that have developed as a result of the sites complex human history. This includes areas clearly identifiable as OMHPDL, a Habitat of Principal Importance under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Swanscombe Peninsula represents one of the last remaining large wildlife-rich brownfield habitats in the Thames Estuary. Its mosaic of habitats (including OMHPDL), size and position within the Thames Estuary allow it to support an extraordinarily rich fauna and flora. The proposals would lead to the loss of the majority of the OMHPDL habitats used by terrestrial invertebrates, with likely high indirect impacts on invertebrates across the site. • The proposals also have the potential to impact the Swanscombe Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ) which has been notified on the basis of its important population of the Tentacled lagoon-worm (Alkmaria romijni) . The habitat of the Tentacled-lagoon work is protected under the WCA. Incomplete Environmental Statement and inadequate assessment: • The London Resort application pre-dates the SSSI notification of the Swanscombe Peninsula. As a result, the SSSI status is not recognised throughout the Environmental Statement and the associated documents. The SSSI notification is a fundamental change within the assessment process and represents a significant change in the baseline of the site and measure of proposed impacts. It is now essential that the application is withdrawn and re-submitted in with appropriate assessments that correctly address the site’s SSSI status. • Buglife has emphasised the inappropriate location of the site in its submissions to the London Resort public consultation. It is noted that within the London Resort’s review of potential alternative sites that the Swanscombe Peninsula is identified as having limited ‘environmental constraints’ or ‘planning constraints’ . It is clear that with the SSSI notification, the selection of the Swanscombe Peninsula as the preferred location for the London Resort development is in need of urgent review. • The habitat assessments have failed to adequately assess both the extent and quality of OMHPDL within the application site. Much of this is a result of failing to utilise the OMHPDL qualifying criteria properly and instead breaking down the site’s complex mosaic into individual constituent components, overlooking their raised value in combination. It has also been suggested that many areas of OMHPDL are only in ‘moderate’ condition, which is undermined by the acknowledged invertebrate assemblages associated with the habitat, which represents the best example in the whole of the UK, as confirmed by comprehensive survey data. Nationally important invertebrate populations: • The Swanscombe Peninsula supports a nationally significant assemblage of invertebrates, which includes over 250 species of conservation concern (Red Data Book or Nationally Scarce), even without the inclusion of 2020 survey data . This exceeds the assemblages at both Canvey Wick and West Thurrock Marshes, long considered to be the best national examples of OMHPDL habitat and key sites in the Thames Estuary for invertebrates. Being home to the longest list of red-listed and nationally scarce invertebrate species of any wildlife-rich brownfield site in the UK means that the site is demonstrably of national significance. • The site supports the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), one of only two UK populations. The loss of the Swanscombe Peninsula’s OMHPDL habitats would threaten the long-term future of this spider as a UK species. The site also supports the Endangered Duffey’s bell-head spider (Praestigia duffeyi), the Vulnerable Orange-striped water beetle (Graphoderus cinereus) and several Near Threatened invertebrate species. The site also boasts an impressive list of invertebrate Section 41 species, that are indicative of the site’s potential importance: Sea aster mining bee (Colletes halophilus), Brown-banded carder bee (Bombus humilis), Phoenix fly (Dorycera graminum), Black-headed mason wasp (Odynerus melanocephalus), Five-banded weevil wasp (Cerceris quinquefasciata), Saltmarsh shortspur beetle (Anisodactylus poeciloides), Yellow-striped bear-spider (Arctosa fulvolineata), in addition to a number of declining Lepidoptera species. • Although a combined list of 2012, 2015 and 2020 invertebrate surveys has not been compiled by the applicant, it is abundantly clear that the Swanscombe Peninsula supports an outstanding assemblage of invertebrates, with in excess of 2,000 terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates recorded. This makes it the single most significant site for invertebrates within the Thames Estuary, and a leading site nationally. • Swanscombe supports a quarter of the national water beetle fauna, demonstrating the national significance of the aquatic invertebrate assemblages. Of the 199 species submitted in the surveys prior to 2020, this includes 1 Vulnerable species, 3 Near Threatened water beetle species, 10 Nationally Scarce species and 42 Local Species. Across the site, two thirds of communities were assessed as being of Very High Conservation Value using the Community Conservation Index (CCI). • The Swanscombe MCZ is the only MCZ designated for the Tentacled lagoon-worm in the East of England. Absence of a detailed mitigation and compensation strategy for invertebrates: • The applicant has failed to provide a comprehensive mitigation and compensation strategy, despite the long-acknowledged value of the site prior to the recent SSSI notification. On-site proposals are notably limited in their specific efforts for terrestrial invertebrates and off-site compensation proposals are limited only to ‘Offsite mitigation principles’ . It is unacceptable that a SSSI is at risk of such significant loss to development, and for proposals to be limited to principles alone. • Importantly, without a detailed mitigation and compensation strategy, it is not possible for a reasonable Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken of any site, let alone one of recognised national importance. • With regards to the limited mitigation and compensation information provided, Buglife expects the current on and off-site proposals to lead to an overall considerable net loss of biodiversity, with irreversible impacts on the invertebrate biodiversity of the Thames Estuary. • The on-site mitigation proposed would not be expected to support a large proportion of the invertebrate interest identified. The proposed layout would see the loss of the vast majority of the OMHPDL areas and associated habitats supporting the terrestrial invertebrate interest, with the retained areas being more wet in character. • Buglife considers OMHPDL to be an irreplaceable habitat that cannot be recreated with any proven success. Losses of irreplaceable habitats must be avoided as a priority. • It is also concerning that the principles of offsite mitigation for invertebrates for a nationally significant habitat of such complexity are evidence only by small scale habitat creation works which were created in 2013 as part of the London Distribution Park development. This involved the creation of a simple layout of bunds on spread material, with no demonstration that habitats as complex as those on the Swanscombe Peninsula can be replicated. For such small scale works to be used as the primary evidence for a proposed mitigation approach for such a nationally significant wildlife site of clear complexity is unacceptable. Policy: • The proposed development undermines the government’s commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land for nature by 30% and its commitment to Nature Recovery Networks and the 25 Year Environment Plan’s commitment to “effectively linking existing protected sites and landscapes” . The SSSI network and protection of habitats of principle importance must underpin the government’s approach to halting biodiversity declines. • Although overridden by the NSIP process, Paragraph 175 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that “ (a) if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused; (b) development on land within or outside a Site of Special Scientific Interest, and which is likely to have an adverse effect on it (either individually or in combination with other developments), should not normally be permitted.” The proposals would lead to irreversible impacts on the nationally important habitats and invertebrate fauna of the Thames Estuary. • NSIP applications are usually guided by National Policy Statements (NPS) produced by the government, for example there are NPS to guide and provide a framework for applications for ports, national transport networks, and energy production or storage facilities. “National Policy Statements undergo a democratic process of public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny before being designated (ie published). They provide the framework within which Examining Authorities make their recommendations to the Secretary of State” . However, there is no such NPS to support theme parks or entertainment developments. • NSIPs are not bound to commit to Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG), but is essential that any claims of BNG are withdrawn from the application following the SSSI notification of the Swanscombe Peninsula. Paragraph 1575 of the Environment Bill explanatory notes confirms that “development cannot claim biodiversity net gain in cases when development results in land take from statutory protected sites (such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Special Protection Areas, Special Areas of Conservation, and Ramsar sites)” Issues of joint concern: Buglife, CPRE Kent, Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) and the RSPB will work together during the Examination on issues of joint concern including impacts on protected species and the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI (including SSSI land take, hydrological impacts, noise & light pollution and recreational impacts). This will include where appropriate joint submissions or support for each other’s positions to minimise repetition and save Examination time. For now, it should be noted that Buglife is generally supportive of the other issues raised in the Relevant Representations by our conservation partners. Buglife reserves the right to add to/amend its position should new information be made available by the applicant or other Interested Parties."
Members of the Public/Businesses
C2E Partnership
"Relevant Representation from C2E Partnership – 31 March 2021 INTRODUCTION 1. This Relevant Representation has been prepared on behalf of the C2E Partnership and its contents do not prejudice any Relevant Representations submitted separately by members of the C2E Partnership. 2. The C2E Partnership was formed in 2016 as an informal group of authorities to promote an extension of the Elizabeth Line beyond its current planned terminus at Abbey Wood towards Ebbsfleet. It is comprised of stakeholders that represent local communities in the area including: • London Borough of Bexley • Dartford Borough Council • Gravesham Borough Council • Ebbsfleet Development Corporation • Kent County Council • The Greater London Authority • Thames Gateway Kent Partnership 3. The Partnership also works closely with public transport infrastructure providers, particularly Network Rail and Transport for London. 4. In 2019, Government allocated funding for the preparation of the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet Connectivity Study to assess and develop a range of different transport options (including both Elizabeth Line extensions and lower cost options) in order to support new housing and employment growth along the corridor. The C2E Partnership is responsible for the delivery of the Connectivity Study and has appointed consultants to take forward the technical work. ABBEY WOOD TO EBBSFLEET CONNECTIVITY STUDY 5. The London Borough of Bexley, and the boroughs of Dartford and Gravesham, supported by Kent County Council and the Greater London Authority, have plans to support more jobs, make their town centres more attractive and build more high-quality homes for their communities. 6. Improvements to the transport network in these boroughs aim to support these plans by: i. Making it much easier to travel by public transport to key locations along the route, including Ebbsfleet International, Dartford town centre, health and education facilities and many key employment locations within the area ii. Improving journey times and connections into central London, Canary Wharf and Heathrow Airport and within the local area iii. Attracting more investment and supporting plans for the development of new homes, jobs and leisure facilities, including new town centres at Belvedere and Ebbsfleet iv. Supporting and enhancing the quality of existing town centres in the area including Erith and Dartford v. Reducing reliance on the car, thereby reducing carbon emissions, improving air quality and health 7. The Connectivity Study has assessed the potential for different transport options to meet these aspirations. 8. In summer 2020, a longlist of potential options to improve the transport network in the study area was drawn up. This longlist was subject to high level assessment and sifted down to eight broad options for further consideration. 9. The eight options were then subject to further assessment in autumn 2020 and following a detailed appraisal process five options were selected for further development: i. three options involving different ways of extending the Elizabeth Line from Abbey Wood to Dartford and/or Northfleet/Ebbsfleet ii. one option to improve National Rail services (with no change to the Elizabeth Line) iii. one option to provide a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service with no changes to rail services. 10. These schemes were subject to a public consultation in February 2021 (https://www.abbeywood2ebbsfleet.com/) and as part of this details of the schemes were shared with the developers of the London Resort. Comments were received from the London Resort Company Holdings Ltd (LRCH) (26 February 2021) which provided a summary as follows: “LRCH is proposing to develop a global entertainment resort on the Swanscombe Peninsula. It has developed a credible business plan supported by a robust transport strategy that draws upon many modes of travel. LRCH actively monitors the development of major transport infrastructure in the South East, including LTC and the extension of the Elizabeth Line to Ebbsfleet. LRCH actively supports the principle of increased investment in major transport infrastructure in and around the Swanscombe Peninsula and recognise the benefits these may bring to the area as a whole and the Resort, however it is not dependent upon the delivery of such measures for the successful implementation of its own transport strategy and operation of the Resort. LRCH’s preference is public sector investment to ensure the delivery of Options C1 [segregated Crossrail extension to Ebbsfleet] and Hybrid G1/G2 as both are required to deliver multi-modal transport improvements to the Ebbsfleet area that will ‘unlock’ the true extent of the economic dividend offered by the Resort and other planned and future development.” 11. The results of the consultation process are being incorporated into a further detailed appraisal of each scheme. The results of this appraisal process will enable three options to be identified for further analysis and the preparation of a Strategic Outline Business Case which is to be submitted to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport in autumn 2021. 12. All of the options currently being assessed have the potential to complement the delivery of the London Resort proposals. This means that there is the potential to maximise the benefits of investment in public transport services to meet the needs of London Resort and support the wider aspirations for growth and development in the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet Corridor. However, the impacts of this require full assessment to ensure there is no harm to existing communities and that the quality of the existing public transport services is not undermined. ? ISSUES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION 13. Following a review of the documents submitted as part of the DCO application we recommend that the following issues are further considered during the DCO process: i. Impact of London Resort on Rail Services. Para 1.3.5 of the Appendix TA-U Rail Strategy Plan [Document 6.2.9.1] shows that rail modelling work is ongoing and was not completed at the time of the submission of the DCO application. This suggests that it is not currently possible to determine the impact of the London Resort on the rail network. This information should be issued so that the potential for the improvements being developed by the C2E Partnership can be considered and the impacts of LRCH on rail services and the rail interchanges can be assessed. This may require a further model run(s) to determine this impact. We note that the Land Transport report [Document 6.1.9] has not considered the potential impact of the C2E Partnership proposals as part of the development of the strategy except to say there is no impact on the safeguarding proposals (see paragraph 9.371). There has also been no consideration of the project peak flows arising from London Resort (which is important given the scale of the workforce) and how this might impact on the C2E options. Given the size of the potential change to the corridor related to the C2E proposals, we consider the potential for different scheme options to support the delivery of London Resort should be considered in more depth and whether the proposed transport strategy for the London Resort maximises the potential for access by public transport for visitors and staff. ii. Ferry Proposals. The London Resort proposes that 25% of car passengers should travel via a new ferry between London Resort and Tilbury (see paragraph 9.235 of 6.1.9). Other visitors would be expected to travel by ferry from central London. The DCO documents states that seven new 400-seat ferries (page 5 of Appendix TA-W document 6.2.9.1) would be required to deliver this service together with a likely need for additional piers. There would also be considerable ongoing operating costs to deliver the ferry service. This will require considerable capital and operating cost investment by London Resort and we note that there does not appear to be any commitment to this in the draft Development Consent Order (DCO). We recommend that the level of this investment should be identified and then the potential to invest a similar (or lower) level of money in public transport services on the south side of the River Thames should be considered to determine if it could yield enhanced public transport services for visitors and staff to the London Resort and also provide significant support to the development and growth aspirations for the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet corridor. More details of the ticketing strategy should also be provided to understand the attractiveness of a ferry service from central London compared to using the rail network to reach London Resort. It is noted that there is a reliance on ferry services to meet a proportion of the target modal share which in itself presents a risk to the public transport network if the ferry service is not secured or protected or is disrupted. iii. Swanscombe rail station. This station lies on the southern boundary of the development site and we consider that the potential to use this station more actively as part of the transport strategy for London Resort should be considered in more detail. Again, the peak flows of visitors and workers are likely to have an important impact on the station and these have not been fully assessed. Potential changes could include upgrading access arrangements at the station. This would complement proposals to improve the frequency of rail services to the station as part of the C2E proposals. It is disappointing given its proximity to the Resort that Swanscombe Station is not included within the DCO Order limits so that innovative solutions could have been considered. iv. Impact of London Resort on bus services, including Fastrack. We consider that further work should be completed to consider how the bus service proposals proposed as part of the C2E partnership could complement the arrangements proposed for London Resort. Further assessment needs to be undertaken of the Resort proposals on the existing bus services (including Fastrack) and the interchanges served by the buses, with a sensitivity test carried out of how the C2E proposals might create further impacts. This could lead to synergies from bus service enhancements which serve the needs of staff and visitors to London Resort and residents and employees in the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet Corridor. This assessment should consider the potential to build on the success of Fastrack and identify the need for further infrastructure and / or operational requirements and the potential sources of funding which would be required. v. Impact on the link between Northfleet Station and Ebbsfleet Station. We also consider that the Ebbsfleet Multi Storey Car park (Work No.23) could prejudice the objective to create a pedestrian link between Northfleet Station and Ebbsfleet International Station. This link provides a connection between the North Kent Line train service and the Ebbsfleet international services and HS1. The pedestrian link is critical to the successful delivery of a Crossrail extension to Ebbsfleet as Crossrail trains would have to stop at Northfleet. vi. Potential for Tax Increment Financing (TIF), e.g. via a London Resort ‘Enterprise Zone’. Upgrading the public transport network to improve the sustainability of the Resort will require funding, at a time of significant fiscal pressure. The proposed Resort, an NSIP, is a standalone investment that is likely to pay a significant amount annually in business rates. There are precedents in the use of an Enterprise Zone as a TIF mechanism, alongside established developer contribution mechanisms such as s106, in order to help fund the public transport improvements needed to unlock major national infrastructure projects (such as Battersea Power Station redevelopment). These public transport network improvements will be needed early in the implementation of London Resort, so an appropriate financing structure will need to develop to fund the improvements ahead of the business rates accruing. vii. Safeguarding. The safeguarding and future proofing measures required for an extension of Crossrail should be secured through the DCO and they are not included at present. viii. Transport targets. The modal shift aspirations expressed by the applicant are not secured through the DCO and have not been subjected to any sensitivity testing on the wider public transport network."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Catherine Foster
"This is not the right site for this development. Millions could be spent on mitigation but ultimately once it us destroyed it is gone and this ancient and important green space cannot be replaced. Rare species survive here. Beautiful birds bring joy here. It is a refuge for invertebrates. They cannot speak for themselves so we must speak up for them and for future generations of humans who will appreciate them and who will cherish their importance. All of this will be wiped away for a commercial enterprise which could do just as well at a different site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of CEMEX UK Properties Ltd
"CEMEX operate a construction materials production and distribution facility at CEMEX Northfleet, Botany Marches, Lower Road, DA11 9BB (Property). The following businesses support 40 FT employees and 15 haulage jobs: - Aggregate plant - Block plant factory and large stocking area - Ready mix concrete plant Land at the Property is also let to Gill Aggregates. The Property abuts the proposed London Resort (Development) to the immediate east. Road Access Material is imported to the Property by river and road. The sole vehicular access is via Manor Way / Lower Road (Access Road), linking to the wider strategic road network via the A226 and A2260. Maintaining unaffected journey times and an unimpeded vehicular access is business critical. Longer journey times increase costs and reduce income. Certain products have a limited product life; if Ready Mix concrete is over two hours old it breaches the BS specification. Access Road The Access Road would be subject to permanent rights and restrictive covenants under the DCO. The Land Plans show plots 67, 67a and 72 (Lower Road) subject to temporary possession for works. The existing commercial units accessed from Lower Road will be replaced by a main back-of-house area, including delivery and servicing yard and 500-space staff car park. Lower Road will potentially also be used for construction access. CEMEX is concerned of intensification over the existing use will result in severe congestion. CEMEX also has serious concerns about problematic off-site parking along the Access Road. CEMEX opposes any uses, rights created, works or modifications to the Access Road which would disrupt access to the Property on a temporary or permanent basis. Any Development Consent should be subject to appropriate conditions that control means of access to the Development and ensure that the Access Road remains unobstructed. Highway Network The local and strategic highway network in the vicinity of the Property already experiences very high traffic volumes and is frequently congested. It is difficult to see in practice how a development of this scale would not pose a significant risk to increasing journey times to the Property. CEMEX is concerned that impacts upon the operation of the local and strategic highway networks have not been adequately assessed and that the Development will create congestion, thereby increasing journey times to and from the Property, during both construction and use. Any Development Consent should be subject to appropriate conditions that suitably control use of the local highway network. The Development should not create any increase in traffic during construction or use which would adversely impact CEMEX’s use of the Property and other local businesses. Property Use The Property is remote from any uses potentially affected by local noise and dust. The Developer has stated that any potentially sensitive receptors (e.g. hotels) will be located to the west of the HS1 train line. CEMEX seeks confirmation that: - Potentially sensitive receptors will be located to the west of HS1. - The Developer will not object to existing or future lawful uses at the Property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christoper I. Rose
"Swanscombe Peninsula marshes should not be developed as a theme park because of its extremely high value for nature and for the recreation, health and well-being local communities and other visitors. The recent SSSI designation reflects the fact that it has many rare habitats supporting rare species, many of which were formerly common along the Thames Estuary. The proposed development with large car parks and new access roads will increase car dependency and vehicular pollution, and destroy the wildlife habitats which cannot be substituted for by 'planting' etc within a theme park complex. It will also have large construction and use carbon/environmental footprint, incompatible with climate targets. The site should instead be conserved in perpetuity as a biodiversity and health park, used for study, recreation, conservation and ecosystem services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Edie
"I would be so upset if the beautiful area would be overtaken by the London Resort. It is a wonderful area which I very much enjoy walking around with my dog.It is a very important place to improve my mental and physical health.There is so much variety of animals and plants in this area. I feel it would be very cruel to remove the habitat from so many animals especially as they include many endangered species. I also feel very concerned that the industrial units around the area would have to go which will result in so many job losses for local people.I would also be very concerned about the traffic congestion as the roads are already much too busy. I hope that you will reconsider applying for planning permission to build on this very important site especially taking into consideration has been designated as an SSSI area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Dinham
"Swanscombe supports a wide range of habitats including Open mosaic habitat , coastal habitats, grasslands, scrub and wetlands. The site is considered by Natural England to be of SSSI quality which is currently subject to consultation however, there is a statutory duty for it to be considered as a SSSI until the end of this process in July. This incredibly important site is home to 250 invertebrate species of conservation concern, including the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is found on only one other site in the UK. The site also supports a wide biodiversity including rare and threatened species of birds and plants. We are currently facing an ecological and climate emergency, and protection of sites such as Swanscombe is more important than ever. I believe that building a theme park in this location is totally inappropriate. Yours sincerely, clare dinham"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wellers Law Group LLP on behalf of Constantin-Valetin Romanescu Seamonix Services Construction Ltd
"BC080001 Outline Objections of Constantin-Valetin Romanescu Seamonix Services Construction Ltd Introduction 1. I am the Director of Seamonix Services Construction Ltd, Unit C0, Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of Seamonix Construction Services Ltd 2. Seamonix Construction Services Ltd is a construction company dealing with commercial constructions and renovations. 3. Seamonix Construction Services Ltd have a three year lease at Unit C0 which we lease from AGB Cars Ltd. 4. Seamonix Construction Services Ltd is strategically placed as it is very close to London with connections to Kent, Essex and the North. 5. I consider it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Seamonix Services Ltd to find brownfield land in this location. 6. Compulsorily purchasing one of our major bases is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. The rent for the premises is really reasonable and if I were to be located it will be a lot more, I work closely with AGB Developments Dartford Ltd and I am referred work by AGB and other lessees on the site and in the locality. Policy Position and Funding 7. We note that there is no National Policy Statement that covers the nature of the London Resort development proposal. Whilst other policies may apply to certain elements of the scheme (e.g. transport), there is no government drive to bring forward this development. It appears to be not a project of national significance but rather a highly speculative private commercial development. 8. The funding position is opaque. The corporate structures and accountability should be examined in detail and we are continuing to research this position and understand that the group company, M S Al Humaidi Ltd. is now offshore in the Isle of Man after accepting a £5m government loan. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Al Humaidi has only committed to funding the project until planning permission is granted (if it is). Once that is achieved he will seek other investors to cover the estimated £3.5billion needed to build the park. Where my business is due to be compulsorily acquired, it is essential to know that the ultimate project will be deliverable to the quality claimed and with appropriate mitigation and compensation. This is far from clear at present. We also have doubts that a COVID19 assessment has been properly carried out which demonstrates that the project is viable in the future. Environmental Effects 9. We also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. we will object in detail in respect of the traffic impacts in the locality. Dartford and the Dartford Crossing is already heavily congested with industrial lorries and other traffic. We note that Highways England have stated that Dartford Tunnel is “one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s road network. It is not viable for the London Resort to be so close to the Dartford Tunnel.” Dartford also has, according to Public Health England, one of the highest percentage of deaths attributable to long term exposure to particulate air pollution. The introduction of the London Resort into this area will only cause increased traffic delays and increased pollution. 10. We support the position of Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife and the RSPB that this theme park is expected to destroy 76ha of priority habitat which is a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. The Estuary has a unique climate which is more continental than the rest of the UK and the 620 acres of marshes is very tranquil. We often see families with their children, walking their dogs at the marches along the number of public footpaths. Building over this area of natural habitat will unacceptably destroy many habitats and species of importance. Reference is made to Swanscombe Peninsula being a largely unused brownfield site. This is simply incorrect. There has in my view been no proper environmental assessment and/or HRA. We are worried too about the impact of construction works such as accommodating workers and traffic implications. Conclusion 11. We object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of our base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable and/or viable; (iii) if built, the effects on traffic congestion and pollution would be severe and (iv) the ecological harm done would be unacceptable. We reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. Dated: 31 March 2021"
Non-Statutory Organisations
CPRE Kent
"CPRE Kent registers its objection to this scheme. We acknowledge the importance of employment provision within the Thames Gateway but consider the negative impacts of this scheme unacceptable. While this Representation outlines the issues with which we are principally concerned, we reserve the right to respond to any additional relevant matters raised. • Environment/Biodiversity o The recent notification of the site as a SSSI is a significant change which reflects the importance of the site’s biodiversity. The application should be re-considered in the light of this notification. o We concur with the concerns expressed by Buglife, KWT and the RSPB over the threat to the terrestrial and aquatic habitats of the peninsula, as well as the deficiencies of the proposal in delivering BNG. We will work alongside these partners during the Examination of this DCO application. o CPRE has mapped light intrusion and tranquillity. The proposed site benefits from a level of tranquillity and dark skies that are unusual for the area, and these features would be destroyed by the proposed project. o Dartford and Gravesham already suffer from some of the worst air quality in the SE. o We are concerned at the hydrogeological implications, including those of raising the formal flood defences at Black Duck Marsh and the introduction of new secondary flood defences and new raised ground on adjoining areas. • Transport o Visitors and staff will place significant strains on the transport network. It is not clear that the impact of peak travel (at weekends and school holidays) has been adequately assessed. It is also uncertain that the consequences of visitors and staff choosing not to use public transport as projected, and failing to meet the proposed modal split, has been assessed. o There remains uncertainty over the delivery of the Lower Thames Crossing, not least in the light of the pending legal challenge of the Government’s current Road Investment Strategy. It is uncertain how this will affect the transport modelling undertaken by the applicant. • Sustainability o The applicant acknowledges that water availability will be an issue. The wider south east region is categorised by the Environment Agency as an area of serious water stress, a situation that will be exacerbated as the projected levels of housing development are delivered. • Visual impact o The proposal will result in the loss of the long, wide views across the marsh, and views towards Galley Hill Church (Grade II* listed) and change the character of the location from rural to urban. • Economy and community impacts o The proposal site currently hosts companies which provide significant levels of employment and provide much-needed services locally. Some of these businesses are ‘bad neighbours’ and, even where financial support is proposed, would likely find it difficult to find appropriate alternative sites. o We are concerned at noise pollution visual and intrusion of the proposals on adjoining residential communities. o We question whether the cumulative impacts of the major developments already taking place at Ebbsfleet and elsewhere are adequately considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Greenwood
"I've been visiting Swanscombe Marshes for recreation since 2015. It's unlike many landscapes in southern England due to its rich history and resulting mosaic of habitats and landscape types. I have not visited anywhere else like it in the UK. The case has been made very well by environmental organisations regarding Swanscombe's diverse ecology and rare species such as the Critically Endangered Distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus). My personal view is that this should be enough to understand that the place can't be built upon and no 'net-gain' of biodiversity is applicable here. Swanscombe's designation as SSSI shows its significance, though it does not recognise its value to people through recreation and public enjoyment, as well as the financial and economic impact from access to such special places. Thank you for the opportunity to comment."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Dartford & Gravesham Cycling Forum
"Introduction The Dartford & Gravesham Cycling Forum promotes Active Travel within the boroughs of Dartford & Gravesham. It seeks to maximise the opportunities to expand and improve the local Active Travel Infrastructure in the two boroughs and in doing so expand local residents travel choices within their localities. The Forum objects to the proposal put forward for consideration on the basis that it does not deliver significant improvements to the local active travel infrastructure. Policy Considerations: The National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 9 • “Promoting sustainable transport” is extremely specific about the need to prioritise cycling and walking and develop active travel infrastructure solutions. • London Resorts proposals do not go far enough to meet these requirements both within the development boundary and in the surrounding local areas. • Supporting facilities such as cycle parking, changing facilities and e-bike recharging points are not detailed with in the submission. Gear Change and LTN 1/20: • Is Government Policy and represents the latest thinking in cycle infrastructure delivery and design. It states that: “Networks and routes should be Coherent; Direct; Safe; Comfortable and Attractive.” • The proposals for cycling are not enough to achieve meaningful improvements to the local cycling infrastructure, both in terms of network development and the design standards required to meet the ambitious objectives set by central Government. Routes: • Within the resort the Forum is concerned about the design and extent of the proposed cycle and walking routes. Routes do not conform to minimum width requirements, the “dynamic kinetic envelope of cyclists” is ignored in the documentation. • Users of tricycles, quadricycles, cycle trailers and cargo bikes are not considered, raising access issues for less abled cyclists, families and environmentally aware businesses. • The resort footprint acts as a barrier to active travellers along the east /west alignment depriving the area of coherent and direct routes. Without more detailed proposals from both the London Resort and the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation it is difficult to assess if a good, high-quality network is achievable. • The Cycling forum has reservations about the alignments, quality, connectivity and road safety of the external “Key Routes” identified by London Resort, and feel that closer examination is necessary. • The “Key Routes” identified by the London Resort are unsuitable for users of tricycles, quadricycles, cycle trailers and cargo bikes raising access issues for less abled cyclists, families and environmentally aware businesses. Road Safety: • There are various at grade crossing points where pedestrian and cyclist safety are an issue, in particular where routes cross roads with 40 mph or higher speed limits. • Proposals to use advisory on road cycle lanes which offer little or no protection to users are not conducive to encouraging guests to travel sustainably to the Resort. Air Pollution: • Dartford and Gravesham have between them some of the worst air pollution in the country, as a group promoting active travel, good quality air is a prerequisite, the increase in traffic by the resort will have a negative impact on local air quality and subsequently on the health of local communities."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Dartford Borough Council
"Dartford Borough Council is registering a relevant representation in relation to the proposed London Resort Development Consent Order Application. This is in the form of a joint relevant representation together with Ebbsfleet Development Corporation and Kent County Council which has been provided separately by email to the Planning Inspectorate. Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Horsfield
"• I worked in nature conservation for 30 years for the Nature Conservancy Council and later for Scottish Natural Heritage in both England and Scotland. My work involved me in assessing the importance of SSSI and SAC for habitats, flora and invertebrates. • The Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI has been recognised as of national importance for its habitats, flora and wildlife. The London Resort theme park NSPI should not be built on a site of such importance for nature conservation. This is a test of the government’s commitment to nature conservation and the environment generally. We should be valuing our wildlife rather than destroying it in the name of a man-made “theme park”. • Because the site has been recently designated as an SSSI there is need for the NSPI application to be resubmitted. This is no longer just a “brownfield” site ready to be reclaimed as stated in the NDIP submission. The value of these kinds of “brownfield” sites for the conservation of open ground plant and animal species has been recognised among conservationists for decades. • A perusal of the importance of the SSSI for invertebrates (see Annex 4 Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI Supporting Information) with 250 species of conservation concern can only be described as staggering. Most of the species listed are of a predominantly southern distribution in Great Britain. • The particular importance of Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI for invertebrates, and other animal and plants, lies in the diverse mix of habitats including chalk pits, saltmarsh, brackish grazing marsh, wetland, open water, free draining grassland and scrub. This juxtaposition is important because insect larval stages often have different habitat requirements to the adult stages. The site has to be rated one of the top sites for invertebrates in G.B. • The site is important for its breeding bird assemblage and locally important reptiles and mammals. • There is also a number of nationally scarce vascular plant species. • During the Covid lockdown it has become apparent that people in general are coming to appreciate the outdoors and the natural world more and more. It just doesn’t make sense to build a massive development of this kind on a top site for nature conservation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Lawson
"The points I would be interested in making following the examination would be security both for members of public and staff. Amongst foot traffic, would cycling, scooters, skating be allowed in and around the resort. Eco friendly mode of transportation for getting to and from the resort. If membership scheme would be introduced for visitors."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Coaten
"Hello my main points are that I have concern of the development of the Swanscombe Peninsula because it is a local wildlife area that's has an abundance of wildlife and an established Eco system, it has been recognised as an SSSI Nature Reserve. Many rare species of insects, birds, mammal and plants We live in an already densely populated area and the development of this land would have an detremential affect on the already busy local roads and motorways. If there is a problem on the A2/M25 motorway, the local areas become gridlocked. In this area it already has high levels of pollution and the increased traffic and development works will have a greater impact on our health. The area needs this green space to absorb the water levels when there are tidal surges."
Other Statutory Consultees
Department for Transport
"The Department acknowledges the national significance of the London Resort Company Holdings (“LRCH”) development proposal. The Secretary of State for Transport owns various property interests that have been included within LRCH’s proposed Development Consent Order (“the DCO”) red line boundary. he Group Property team at Department for Transport (“The Department”) have not been consulted at all regarding the potential acquisition or impact of the proposals to their property interests.?The Department on behalf of Secretary of State for Transport can therefore not support the DCO application as it stands on the basis of lack of information and consultation in relation to its property interests. The Department requests to be registered as an Interested Party to ensure proper consultation is undertaken going forward. The Department is aware however that LRCH has consulted with the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (EDC) who is the freeholder of much of the land in question and HS1 Ltd, the concession holder and Department’s sub-lessee. The Department, as both long lessee and freeholder of land and infrastructure within the DCO red line boundary, should also have been consulted in a similar manner in relation to its property interests to date. The Department has evidence that EDC sent an email to LRCH requesting contact is made with Department and providing specific contact details on 29 June 2020, but no contact was made. The Department recognises there are a number of complexities which need to be thoroughly considered, mitigated and addressed throughout the lifecycle of the development proposed. Land ownership / property interest concerns The proposed DCO has captured numerous land interests as a category 2 interest (where The Secretary of State for Transport is party to an option agreement). In addition, the Secretary for State for Transport also has category 1 interests (long lessee or freehold) in plots 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 311, 312 313, 314, 316. It is unclear within the “book of reference” precisely what is intended by LRCH concerning the proposed acquisition of and impact on the Department’s property interests. Inclusion of the phrase “except those owned by the Crown” is used in relation to the plots (listed above). Further clarity is needed on this urgently. There is an option agreement which gives LRCH rights to acquire land for access to the resort, however the proposed DCO appears to be seeking land and rights outside that agreement. Urgent clarity is needed as to how LRCH propose to acquire these and by what means. Furthermore, there is extremely limited information relating to the proposed Multi Storey Car Park or the acquisition of the land on which LRCH propose this is built. Much more information is required in relation to the additional traffic created by the London Resort and its impact on highway capacity. Operational concerns Having not been directly consulted to date by LRCH there is a large number of potential operational issues that we do not have full information on and which raise significant concerns to Department. The existing railway infrastructure, which LRCH itself intends will become one of the main transport links into the Resort, is HS1. HS1 is a high-speed railway, connecting Ebbsfleet International Station to London St Pancras in the North and to the Channel Tunnel in the South. Ebbsfleet International Station is served by both domestic and international rail services. As infrastructure owner, the Department is concerned with maintaining the efficient and effective operation of critical rail services now and into the future, as well as protecting the long-term value of the concession for taxpayers. HS1 is operated as a concession, managed by High Speed 1 Ltd a self-funded infrastructure management company. The Department also has a contract with London South Eastern Railway (LSER) to operate the domestic passenger rail services along the HS1 network as well as the South East of the National Rail network. The Department recognises that there will be a number of direct impacts on HS1, the concession and service provision arising from the LRCH proposals, including (but not limited to): Timetable and service demand. Additional London-Ebbsfleet services will be required to accommodate increased numbers of passengers travelling to and from the Resort. Natural growth. LRCH will introduce a new “leisure” user profile, which will significantly modify the demand strategy which is based on growing commuter traffic. St. Pancras and Ebbsfleet International stations. The proposals will necessitate modifications to existing station facilities such as platforms, ticketing and access facilities in complex environments, including heritage considerations. Ultimately, increased demand could necessitate station expansion and future rail use will need to be safeguarded. Provision of rolling stock. There are costs associated with any extra trains required, as well as the wider impact on operations, stabling and maintenance of additional fleet, all of which will require detailed further analysis. HS1 railway infrastructure. Additional utilisation of railway assets (such as track, signalling etc) would require LRCH contributions to a structure of charges specific to HS1 concession. The Department understands that the HS1 issues mentioned above are being explored further in a joint independent capacity study commissioned by HS1 Ltd/LRCH. The Department has observed three meetings relating to this study where the consultants responsible for the work (Steer Group) have presented some initial findings, but to date there remain many uncertainties and no final conclusions. We note the report is due to be completed in mid-April 2021. In addition, HS1 services are not the only means of travel to the proposed resort and passengers may also choose to use the National Rail network; as such, changes to station infrastructure (such as Swanscombe and Northfleet) and service provision along this network may also be required. As its stands there has been no consultation with the Department on this element. The Department would welcome the involvement of all railway stakeholders and a collaborative approach to exploring feasibility. In conclusion, feasibility studies, as well as more detailed analysis of wider Department interests, commercial and financial consequences for HS1 will be essential to provide confidence that the proposals do not have a negative impact on the successful and safe operation of the railway as LRCH progress their proposed development. Please register the Department as an Interested Party so we can be kept informed of relevant information and hearings that might affects its position."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diana Smith
"I live very close to this site and have concerns of noise pollution vehicle Congestion and pollution and how this will effect me and my property"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dinesh Guggilam
"I am completely supportive for this project as this will create job opportunities to the job seekers and UK will be one more hot tourist spot for the locals replacing Paris"
Members of the Public/Businesses
donna sommerford
"Too keep up to date and to have my views if I feel it will affect our area in a negative way"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wellers Law Group LLP on behalf of Dorian Osmani
"BC080001 Outline Objections of DMJ Group Ltd and Mr Dorian Osmani Introduction 1. I am the Director of DMJ Group Ltd of Yard 6 and Unit 3 of B5/B6, Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of DMJ Group Ltd 2. DMJ Group Ltd is a construction company dealing with the removal of asbestos and other commercial waste. I have a licence to occupy from 1 December 2020 for 3 years. (expiry 30/11/23). 3. DMJ Group was incorporated on 14th September 2016. It is a relatively new business but the plan is to expand with more units at Manor Way Business Park. 4. DMJ has 40 employees and is strategically placed as it is very close to London with connections to Kent, Essex and the North and importantly our principal client, based in Longfield, Dartford. 5. I consider it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for DMJ Group to find brownfield site. There has to be an environmental assessment where an ecologist will check the site to ensure there are no protected species. Once we obtain planning permission, we have to obtain a permit before we can accept any waste products. The cost of obtaining a permit is approximately £10,000. 6. Because asbestos is a hazardous waste we have to be accredited. For this reason, we require a brownfield site, which is virtually non-existent in London. The brownfield sites in Kent are being used for housing developments. From acquiring the site, applying for planning permission and obtaining a permit, this takes approximately 9 months and possibly longer because of the COVID-19 pandemic. If we cannot operate for 9 months we will incur significant loss of earnings. Swanscombe is a very profitable site with a reasonable rent which I do not consider can be replicated elsewhere. We also have very substantial machinery at Swanscombe which will be expensive to move and there is a possibility of damage. 7. Furthermore, DMJ Group Ltd is a family run business and it is envisaged that all the Directors’ children and grandchildren will inherit and continue to run and expand the business. Consequently, the effects of compulsory purchase will not be felt immediately on a business-level but also on a personal and family level for generations to come. 8. Compulsorily purchasing one of our major bases is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. Policy Position and Funding 9. I note that there is no National Policy Statement that covers the nature of the London Resort development proposal. Whilst other policies may apply to certain elements of the scheme (e.g. transport), there is no government drive to bring forward this development. It appears to be not a project of national significance but rather a highly speculative private commercial development. 10. The funding position is opaque. The corporate structures and accountability should be examined in detail and I am continuing to research this position and understand that the group company, M S Al Humaidi Ltd. is now offshore in the Isle of Man after accepting a £5m government loan. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Al Humaidi has only committed to funding the project until planning permission is granted (if it is). Once that is achieved he will seek other investors to cover the estimated £3.5billion needed to build the park. Where my business is due to be compulsorily acquired, it is essential to know that the ultimate project will be deliverable to the quality claimed and with appropriate mitigation and compensation. This is far from clear at present. Environmental Effects 11. I also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. I will object in detail in respect of the traffic impacts in the locality. Dartford and the Dartford Crossing is already heavily congested with industrial lorries and other traffic. I note that Highways England have stated that Dartford Tunnel is “one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s road network”. It is not viable for the London Resort to be so close to the Dartford Tunnel. Dartford also has, according to Public Health England, one of the highest percentage of deaths attributable to long term exposure to particulate air pollution. The introduction of the London Resort into this area will only cause increased traffic delays and increased pollution. 12. I support the position of Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife and the RSPB, that this theme park is expected to destroy 76ha of priority habitat which is a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. The Estuary has a unique climate which is more continental than the rest of the UK and the 620 acres of marshes is very tranquil. Building over this area of natural habitat will unacceptably destroy many habitats and species of importance. Reference is made to Swanscombe Peninsula being a largely unused brownfield site. This is simply incorrect. Conclusion 13. I object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of AGB Development Ltd’s base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable; (iii) if built, the effects on traffic congestion and pollution would be severe and (iv) the ecological harm done would be unacceptable. I reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. DATED: 31 MARCH 2021"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wellers Law Group LLP on behalf of Dr Nighat Jabeen and Mr Kunwarjeet of Nihang Ltd
"BC080001 Outline Objections of Dr Nighat Jabeen and Mr Kunwarjeet of Nihang Ltd 1. I Mr Kunwarjeet represent the Director of Nihang Ltd of Unit B5 Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of Nihang Ltd 2. Nihang Ltd undertake concrete production with delivery to various sites in Kent and the South East. 3. We have a licence to occupy Unit B2 from AGB Cars Ltd. It is for a period of three years. 4. I am very concerned that if the land that I lease is subject to a CPO, LRCH will not find suitable premises for all the sub-tenants at the same location and for a reasonable price. This is the reason why I sub-let from AGB Cars Ltd. 5. Because of the nature of our work, we require a brownfield site away from residential properties. 6. Our location is in a very good spot close to Dartford Tunnel and the rent is very reasonable. 7. If we were to move from this site, we would incur significant losses which will not be fully compensated for. 8. Compulsorily purchasing our major base is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. Policy Position and Funding 10. I note that there is no National Policy Statement that covers the nature of the London Resort development proposal. Whilst other policies may apply to certain elements of the scheme (e.g. transport), there is no government drive to bring forward this development. It appears to be not a project of national significance but rather a highly speculative private commercial development. 11. The funding position is opaque. The corporate structures and accountability should be examined in detail and I am continuing to research this position and understand that the group company, M S Al Humaidi Ltd. is now offshore in the Isle of Man after accepting a £5m government loan. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Al Humaidi has only committed to funding the project until planning permission is granted (if it is). Once that is achieved he will seek other investors to cover the estimated £3.5billion needed to build the park. Where my business is due to be compulsorily acquired, it is essential to know that the ultimate project will be deliverable to the quality claimed and with appropriate mitigation and compensation. This is far from clear at present. I also have doubts that a COVID19 assessment has been properly carried out which demonstrates that the project is viable in the future. Environmental Effects 12. I also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. I will object in detail in respect of the traffic impacts in the locality. Dartford and the Dartford Crossing is already heavily congested with industrial lorries and other traffic. I note that Highways England have stated that Dartford Tunnel is “one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s road network. It is not viable for the London Resort to be so close to the Dartford Tunnel.” Dartford also has, according to Public Health England, one of the highest percentage of deaths attributable to long term exposure to particulate air pollution. The introduction of the London Resort into this area will only cause increased traffic delays and increased pollution. 13. I support the position of Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife and the RSPB that this theme park is expected to destroy 76ha of priority habitat which is a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. The Estuary has a unique climate which is more continental than the rest of the UK and the 620 acres of marshes is very tranquil. I often see families with their children, walking their dogs at the marches along the number of public footpaths. Building over this area of natural habitat will unacceptably destroy many habitats and species of importance. Reference is made to Swanscombe Peninsula being a largely unused brownfield site. This is simply incorrect. There has in my view been no proper environmental assessment and/or HRA. I am worried too about the impact of construction works such as accommodating workers and traffic implications. Conclusion 14. I object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of our base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable and/or viable; (iii) if built, the effects on traffic congestion and pollution would be severe and (iv) the ecological harm done would be unacceptable. I reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. Dated: 31 March 2021"
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Ebbsfleet Development Corporation
"Dear Sir / Madam, The relevant representation from Ebbsfleet Development Corporation in its role as a major land owner within the Order Limits has been sent via email to [email protected] Many thanks Jen Hunt Head of Ebbsfleet Central Ebbsfleet Development Corporation"
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Ebbsfleet Development Corporation
"Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (as Local Planning Authority) is registering a relevant representation in relation to the proposed London Resort Development Consent Order Application. This is in the form of a joint relevant representation together with Dartford Borough Council and Kent County Council which has been provided separately by email to the Planning Inspectorate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ellie Beadle
"I am strongly opposed to this development. My primary reason is impact on the natural environment and wildlife. I am also opposed to it on grounds of congestion and pollution it would bring to an already overcrowded part of the South East."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emily Yetman
"I am making a written representation against the application for development consent. I have grown up visiting Swanscombe Peninsula at weekends with my family, and as for many others, it has been a destination of escapism. The vast array of life that the wetlands support is unmatched. It is our local retreat for our own mental health and for local and migratory species. The great impact Swanscombe Peninsula has on wildlife and local communities is why I believe that the Swanscombe Peninsula is the wrong place for a theme park. During the pandemic, I have been shielding. However, during release of restrictions was able to explore my local area and visited the Swanscombe Peninsula for its beauty and biodiversity. It allowed me to connect again with nature and positively benefitted my mental wellbeing during an exceedingly challenging time. It has become a place of treasure for myself and many others. Furthermore, living in [], there are few green open spaces. Therefore, the loss of this local area would be of a huge cost to myself and many others locally. Globally there are increasing concerns with climate change and numerous studies linking mental wellbeing with nature and ‘green’ spaces. Some studies even indicate that pathology of disease is decreased with wetland presence. Therefore, Swanscombe Peninsula provides essential services. It also allows for the ability to enjoy nature locally and