Representations received regarding Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant
The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant and their relevant representations.
The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant and their relevant representations.
|Source||Representation - click on an item to see more details|
|Other Statutory Consultees|
"Please see attached."
David Gill on behalf of Basildon Borough Council
"This Council raises no objections to the proposed development, subject to appropriate measuring being put in place regarding air quality, and transport matters."
Thurrock District Scout Council
"Condovers Scout Activity Centre (Condovers) is approximately 3.5 acres and is located on the south side of Church Road between Cooper Shaw Road and Low Street Lane. Condovers is used all year round by [Redacted] and approximately 450 adult volunteers), most of the activities at Condovers take place outdoors and all people staying at the site use tents as sleeping accommodation. Our peak use of the site is weekends (Easter to October) and weekdays (late afternoon/evenings) May to August. Condovers Scout Activity Centre has been operating on this site since 1948 and does not appear to be detailed on the maps in the planning documents. Havers Lodge, which is located on Condovers, is mentioned in section 1.1.6 of Chapter 2: Project Description Environment Statement as a residential property, this is incorrect. Our main concerns with the proposals are: • Additional HGV traffic on Church Road during construction, a very narrow country lane • Road and footpath closures during construction, which would impact our members, living in the east of the borough, access to Condovers. • Road and footpath closures during construction, which would also impact on short hikes/rambles for our youth members which start and end from Condovers. • The environmental impact, noise, and air quality on Condovers, during the construction of the gas pipeline and permanent access road in zone C, parallel to the railway line. • The environmental impact, noise, and air quality during operation of the generation plant, on Condovers."
|Members of the Public/Businesses|
"Firstly. The sound recording for barriers was carried out some time ago when construction of the new estate between the Bats factory and East Tilbury railway line was being undertaken. This would have caused a false reading as pointed out by myself to the recording operator. There has been no recoding done since construction work was completed. Secondly I have footage of migrating geese gorging on farmers field to the side of my property being the rear of Beechcroft Avenue. This happens almost every year at the end of August beginning of September. This may well be the last of the migrating pattern for these geese due to the land converting to flood plane and considerable construction work."
Castle Point Borough Council
"This Authority does not wish to comment on the current proposal."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
Anglian Water Services Limited
"Thank for you the opportunity to comment on the Thurrock Flexible Energy 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 above site: Anglian Water is in principle supportive of the above project. Impact on existing assets: There are existing sewers located within the boundary of the above project as shown on statutory asset plans. Draft DCO wording: Anglian Water is of the view that article 16 as drafted does not appear to be consistent. Paragraph (3) makes it clear that consent of the owner of the sewerage network is required to discharge water into it (subject to reasonableness); but paragraph (2) states that disputes must be determined in accordance with Section 106 of the Water Industry Act. However consent is not required as part of the Section 106 process nor can the capacity of the received network which is considered to be a planning issue be taken into account. We would therefore suggest at that article 16(2) (Discharge of Water) of the Draft DCO be replaced with the following wording: “(2) Any dispute arising from the making of connections to or the use of a public sewer or drain by the undertaker under paragraph (1) is to be determined in accordance with the arbitration provisions in article 43 (arbitration)” 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. Therefore we recommend that the Draft DCO is amended to include specific protective provisions for Anglian Water as previously requested. Therefore we would wish to make a holding objection to Draft DCO wording for the reasons set out above. Connections to public sewerage networks: We note that an on-site package treatment plant or tankering off site is currently the preferred option for the discharge of foul flows from the welfare facilities which form part of proposed development (7.3 – Conceptual Drainage Strategy) with details to be developed and agreed post consent. Similarly it is proposed to develop attenuation basins and associated infrastructure to manage surface water which is expected to be discharged into ditches. As such the foul and surface water drainage strategy for the proposed development does not appear to interact with Anglian Water's operated assets. Therefore we would expect the Environment Agency and Thurrock Council as Lead Local Flood Authority to comment on the suitability of proposed method of foul and surface water drainage. In the event that the method of foul and surface water were to require a connection to the public sewerage network following approval we would wish to be consulted to ensure that any revised strategy is sustainable and that there is no detriment to our customers. Should you have any queries relating to this response please let me know."
Gravesham Borough Council
"Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) is located on the southern side of the River Thames opposite the site, as seen in the graphic used for the covers of the application documents. The Council has had a couple of discussions with the applicant about their proposal and raised a number of concerns. No commitment has been made to recoup GBC costs incurred on this project. The application needs to be placed on the context of the recent Tilbury Port expansion (Tilbury 2) and the proposed development consent order Lower Thames Crossing and London Resort projects. The later has proposals which impact on Tilbury Riverside. Although in abeyance there were proposals for a new energy plant on the remaining land of the former Tilbury Power Station. There are also a number of development sites identified in the Local Plan Core Strategy (adopted 2014) for development in Gravesend Town Centre, at the Canal Basin and further east as well existing development, to be taken into account. The Council’s key areas of interest are the impact of the development relating to the following matters: Noise and vibration During construction and operation there is potential for noise and disturbance to Gravesham residents. A particular concern is the construction, operation and long term use of the proposed causeway. This does not appear to be removed after use. Air Quality and emissions GBC is concerned of the possible implications arising from the development on the air quality in the Borough which has a number of air quality management areas. The Environmental Statement highlights a moderate adverse effect at West Street, Gravesend. Nature conservation GBC recognises that the ecological and biodiversity impacts of the project are complex, with the project having the potential to impact directly and indirectly upon both the terrestrial and marine environments. Whilst the development is outside the boundary of the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and the Ramsar site, the Council needs to ensure that these internationally important sites are not adversely affected by the proposal Landscape and visual impact The Environmental Statement notes the impact on long views from Gravesend towards the development leading to further urbanisation of the river where long views are a key element of the character of the area. Potential lighting impacts of the causeway during construction and its long term use are a concern. Impact on heritage assets Gravesend contains a significant number of listed buildings, conservation areas and a historic monument. The historical significance of the forts and blockhouses comes from their interrelationships as well as individually. Green Belt The proposal is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The applicant notes that new buildings are inappropriate development under the NPPF and so should not be approved except in very special circumstances. This is not a renewable energy project so not covered by NPPF paragraph 147. This proposal will cause harm to the purposes of the Green Belt in an area where there are already significant pressures development leading to a significant diminution cumulatively of openness in an area which is sensitive in landscape, ecological and historical terms."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
Transport for London
"Transport for London (TfL) strongly encourages the applicant to maximise use of rail and water freight to transport construction material and waste to and from the site. Water freight has great potential given the site location. This will help to reduce the number of movements by heavy good vehicles (HGVs) and thereby reduce the impact on the local and strategic road networks including cross boundary impacts which may extend to the London boundary. The submitted Construction Traffic and Transport Plan and Transport Assessment lack details on freight movement by modes other than by HGV. The applicant should be required to commit to ambitious targets to minimise freight movements by road and maximise the use of alternatives, these commitments to be detailed in further submissions and secured through planning obligations or conditions."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
"sent via e-mail"
|Members of the Public/Businesses|
ICENI PROJECTS on behalf of Cogent Land LLP
"Cogent Land LLP (“Cogent”) have concerns regarding the Proposed Development as they have a legal interest in Land at East Tilbury which is expected to be directly affected by the proposals. A map showing the extent of Cogent’s land interests has been provided with previous representations made on 11 November 2019. Cogent wishes to register as an interested party and has set out below its position in respect of the project. Cogent do not object to the principle of the DCO scheme, however, they are concerned that there has been insufficient consideration of the alternatives, particularly, in relation to the corridors for the gas pipeline within zone D, and the impact it will have on the planned development in this area. Zone D comprises sections of land within which the gas pipeline and National Grid gas connection compound (AGI) will be constructed. Cogent have been promoting Land at East Tilbury, which falls within zone D, for development throughout the Local Plan process for a number of years and via a planning application (ref.16/01232/OUT). Since previous consultations, Cogent are pleased that the Proposed Development has been refined as part of the iterative design process resulting in a number of changes which would reduce the area of land to be affected. However, Cogent’s land interests fall within Zones D of the proposed order limits and there remains a concern that the Proposed Development would reduce the developable area of Cogent’s land interests. Due to the nature of the development proposals the Applicant requires flexibility in the DCO for the design of a number of elements of the Proposed Development, including the gas pipeline route and siting of the AGI connection to the National Transmission System (NTS). This flexibility gives raise to uncertainty on the development that Cogent is promoting. It is not clear if the red line boundary reflects permanent land take or if the Applicant is seeking the acquisition of the rights to the land for maintenance and access. Furthermore, guidance from the National Grid states that easement strips for high pressure gas pipelines typically range from 6 to 25 metres in width dependent on the diameter and pressure of the pipeline which do not appear to be shown on any of the plans issued to date. The width of such an easement could have a significant impact on the developable area of the remainder of Cogent’s land interests. Clarity is required on these points and the impact on Cogent's proposed development. The current route of the gas pipeline bisects Cogent’s land interest, resulting in an area of land to the south of Station Road becoming segmented from the wider development site. As mentioned above the land in question comprises part of a wider masterplan which is being promoted to deliver a minimum of 3,000 homes and associated infrastructure and therefore this reduction in the developable area could have a significant impact on housing delivery. There is potential for the Proposed Development to create access issues to this land parcel during both the construction and operational phases of any future development, which could significantly inhibit the viability of development at this location. Cogent do not object to the principle of the DCO scheme, however, we believe that the further work needs to be undertaken to fully assess the impacts of this development on the surrounding area, including Cogent’s land interests, and to ensure that most appropriate alternatives are selected that will not impede the delivery of much needed homes and infrastructure in this location."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
Marine Management Organisation
"Good morning, Due to the word limit in this section, the Marine Management Organisation submitted our relevant representation via email to [email protected] on 30 July 2020. Should you have any questions please let me know. Kind regards, Nicola Wilkinson Marine Licensing Case Officer Marine Management Organisation"
|Other Statutory Consultees|
"“Dear Sir/Madam REPRESENTATION BY NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION PLC (“NGET”) and NATIONAL GRID GAS PLC (“NGG”) TO THE Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant DCO (“THE PROJECT”) NGET & NGG wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project DCO 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 & NGG’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme are being reviewed in relation to impacts on NGET’s & NGG’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area, and NGET & NGG may 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 & NGG are liaising with the Promoter in this regard and have been throughout the whole process thus far. NGET assets which have been identified as being within or within close proximity to the proposed Order limits are: OVER HEAD LINE YYJ 400KV Over Head Line Route; ZB 275KV Over Head Line Route; ZJ 200KV Over Head Line Route; 4VG 400KV Over Head Line Route. SUBSTATIONS: TILBURY2 275KV Substation; TILBURY4 400KV Substation. CABLES: Tilbury Cable Tunnel, Kingsnorth – Tilbury 400kV cable and associated apparatus; 400 kV cables joining TILBURY2 TILBURY4 substations; 11kV cables south of TILBURY2. NGG assets which have been identified as being within or within close proximity to the proposed Order limits are: Feeder Main 18 – Matching Green to Tilbury. As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’s & NGG’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 & NGG 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. I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Spencer Jefferies Development Liaison Officer, Land and Acquisitions.”"
|Other Statutory Consultees|
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. PHE has considered the submitted documentation and at this point has a number of specific observations and comments. Environmental Public Health The potential for minor and moderate air quality impacts on a number of human receptors has been highlighted in the Environmental Statement (ES). This includes particulate matter emitted during construction and from nitrogen dioxide (NO2) during operation and in both cases, with consideration of other developments (and potentially new receptors) in the study area. The supplied ES methodology indicates that the final significance of an effect rests with the expert’s professional judgement and that an explanation of this judgment would be provided. However, where a potential moderate impact from air pollution has been assigned, the level of detail justifying why this impact is only of minor significance (i.e. not relevant to EIA or requiring further mitigation) is very limited. Further detail would be useful. As stated in our section 42 consultation response, reducing public exposures to non-threshold pollutants (such as particulate matter and NO2) below air quality standards has potential public health benefits. We support approaches which minimise or mitigate public exposure to non-threshold air pollutants, address inequalities (in exposure), and maximise co-benefits (such as physical exercise) and encourage their consideration during development design, environmental and health impact assessment, and development consent. Whilst Appendix 2.2: identifies potential accidents and emergencies, with the appropriate mitigation measures listed against each, there is no assessment of risk, only a statement that each event is of low likelihood or below with no justification. As noted in our scoping opinion, PHE would expect to see an assessment of all potential hazards in relation to construction, operation and decommissioning; including an assessment of the risks posed; and identification of risk management measures and contingency actions that would be employed in the event of an accident to mitigate off-site effects. Human Health and Wellbeing Further to PHE’s request for a specific human health chapter, we welcome Environmental Statement Vol 3 Chapter 13: Human Health, and Vol 6, Appendix 13.1 Human Health Baseline. We are also broadly supportive of the methodology provided by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (LA112). Reference to other chapters with details of open space, accessibility, transport and socioeconomics is also noted. We recognise the challenges of obtaining ward level health data. However, the difference in health outcomes within different wards as demonstrated by your health baseline data, illustrate the importance of such analysis. These inequalities are unjust and the reduction of health inequalities across populations is one of PHE’s key roles. Appendix 13.1 suggests there is a disparity in the number of years lived in poor health between the most and least deprived communities in the area of the proposed development. Furthermore, evidence suggests that people living in more deprived areas tend to have less access to greenspace. Therefore, PHE requests details of deprivation levels (IMD) for Walton Common, the area which will be lost to the proposed development, and Zone E, the agricultural field proposed as a replacement. We also note that the Transport Assessment (Appendix 10.1) suggests there is capacity for cyclists on the network near the proposed development. However, although there is proposed provision for vehicle parking, there is no provision for cycle parking. PHE therefore requests further information on cycle parking provision at the proposed development."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"APPLICATION BY THURROCK POWER LIMITED FOR AN ORDER GRANTING DEVELOPMENT CONSENT FOR THE THURROCK FLEXIBLE GENERATION PLANT PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: EN010092 SECTION 56 PLANNING ACT 2008: RELEVANT REPRESENTATION OF NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED This is the section 56 representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) provided in respect of Thurrock Power Limited's (Applicant) application for a development consent order (Order) which seeks powers to enable the construction and operation of gas reciprocating engines with up to 600 MW electrical capacity and battery storage with up to 150 MW electrical capacity (Scheme). Network Rail is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. The application describes the proposed route by which vehicles (including HGVs) will provide access to, and egress from, the Applicant's proposed construction compound (Designated Route). The Designated Route includes Low Street level crossing over the London, Tilbury and Southend railway line (Railway) and forms part of Station Road, East Tilbury (Crossing). Network Rail wishes to ensure that the Scheme will not have a detrimental impact on the Crossing or the operation of the Railway and that the safety of the Railway is maintained during the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the Scheme. The application for the Order describes an increase in movements which will reach a maximum of 286 vehicle movements and 164 HGV movements per day during the peak construction period. The movements during the operational and decommissioning phases are noted as being negligible in comparison to the construction phase, however no figures have been provided in the application documents. Network Rail wishes to ensure that the vehicle and HGV movements over the Crossing are undertaken safely at all times. This is particularly important as the Railway is electrified and vehicles need to be within the Crossing's safe height that results from the presence of overhead electric lines. Network Rail must therefore be able to exercise adequate control over the use of the Crossing by the Applicant and its contractors to ensure that vehicle and HGV movements are properly regulated. The Crossing constitutes land owned by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 127 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail also objects to all compulsory powers in the Order to the extent that they affect, and may be exercised in relation to, Network Rail's property and interests. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail will seek amendments to protective provisions and/or requirements within the Order and/or an agreement with the Applicant which regulate the following: a) the use of the Crossing by vehicular traffic; b) the liability of the Applicant for necessary repairs and upgrades to the Crossing as a result of its use by construction and operational traffic associated with the Scheme, including terms which protect Network Rail's statutory undertaking; and c) a safe system of work for regular and irregular large and/or slow moving vehicles. Network Rail has asked the Applicant to confirm whether the vehicular traffic associated with the Scheme will make use of the level crossing over the Railway which forms part of Princess Margaret Road, East Tilbury. Once it has received a response from the Applicant further information will be provided in its written representation. Network Rail notes that the Applicant proposes to undertake works in close proximity to the Railway. Network Rail will require the Applicant to enter into an asset protection agreement to ensure that the works are carried out in regulated manner to prevent adverse impacts to the Railway. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treats Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination, and reserves the right to produce additional and further grounds of concern when further details of the Scheme and its effects on Network Rail's land are available."
Winckworth Sherwood on behalf of Port of London Authority
"1. The Port of London Authority (“the PLA”) is the statutory harbour authority for the tidal Thames (“the river”). Its statutory functions include responsibility for conservancy, dredging, managing the public navigation and controlling vessel movements. Its consent is required for the construction or carrying out of all works including dredging in the river through powers in the Port of London Act 1968. Most of the bed and foreshore of the river is vested in the PLA. 2. The PLA also has duties under section 48A of the Harbours Act 1964 to have regard to environmental matters and the environmental impact of works for which it has a consenting function. 3. The PLA has no issue with the purpose of the draft Order in itself, but considers there has been inadequate consultation and failure to engage fully on the proposed development insofar as it relates to the river. Details of the PLA’s concerns will be provided in its Written Representations but include the following broad issues. 4. Drafting of the Order and Plans 4.1 The drafting of the Order and the plans submitted with the application fail to clearly indicate what the intentions are regarding the river and its bank. The Works Plans indicate a large Limit of Deviation for works numbers 9 and 10 which the PLA believes to be excessive and to potentially interfere with existing features in the river. Additionally, the limited description of works numbers 9 and 10 gives insufficient certainty to the PLA as to the nature of construction of those works and the scope and extent of any temporary works in the river. 4.2 The PLA is not listed in the Book of Reference but the Land plans, when read with the drafting of the Order, suggest a power to acquire land or rights compulsorily within the river, owned by the PLA, which is a potential breach of the application rules. For the avoidance of doubt, the PLA objects to the permanent acquisition of the river banks or bed for any of the works included within the Order and requires greater clarity on any proposed temporary acquisition and acquisition of rights, given the potential to interfere with the public right of navigation on the river. 4.3 The PLA also has concerns that the Protective Provisions do not properly reflect the scope of controls the PLA needs to exercise to safeguard the river (relating to dredging, potential scour and other issues) as its licensing regime under the Port of London Act 1968 is disapplied by the Order. The Order contains only an implied power to dredge. 4.4 In addition to the matters within the proposed Protective Provisions there will need to be a temporary river works licence for ground investigation works to define the correct dredging design level separate to the DCO process. 5. Causeway 5.1 Although it is supportive of appropriate use of the river for the transportation of materials etc., the PLA has a number of concerns about the causeway design and limited details about its operation (including pollution control plans regarding the operation of cranes and vehicles on it), its permanence; future use and maintenance; interaction with the proposed saltmarsh creation and with other third party works in the vicinity. The PLA considers the assessments and assumptions in the Environment Statement (“ES”) and supporting reports about its construction and operation to lack sufficient detail. 5.2 The PLA is particularly disappointed that no separate Navigational Risk Assessment was submitted with the Application, despite having made clear to the Applicant that one would be required. Appendix D to the Concept Design of Causeway for Delivery of Abnormal Indivisible Loads report is inadequate in this regard. 5.3 The option of removing the causeway does not appear to have been assessed in the ES and there is inadequate information about intentions for the future ownership and maintenance of the causeway. The PLA objects to the causeway being left in the river without certainty that the applicant and any successor has sufficient capacity to meet the long term obligations and liabilities for the maintenance and marking of the causeway. 6. Saltmarsh mitigation and flood defence gate 6.1 The PLA has further concerns in relation to the saltmarsh enhancement design and assumptions made about the creation, retention and long-term monitoring are not adequately addressed in the ES. Insufficient ground investigations have been made to date and there is uncertainty on whether any material will need to be imported to create the saltmarsh and, if so, where it will come from. 6.2 There is also insufficient detail in relation to the construction of the gate in the flood defence wall. If this is to be constructed from the river side of the flood defence, the PLA will require more detail on the proposed processes for doing so. 7. Other 7.1 The PLA will wish to attend specific issue hearings and requests that there be a compulsory acquisition hearing."
|Members of the Public/Businesses|
Strutt & Parker on behalf of Diana Cole
"We are making this representation as landowners and prospective landlords for the Thurrock Power project. The Cole family has owned land on the marshes and much of the land between the railway and the A13 since the 1930’s. We have seen many projects come and go over the decades but our interest has grown in this endeavour as we have some direct experience of renewables schemes on land we own elsewhere and we understand the importance of flexible back-up generation in supporting the Government’s desire to see further wind and solar deployment. Tilbury A was commissioned in 1957 and we have watched this location through its development as an electricity hub, next to the port, throughout the last 70 years. The site itself is dominated by large pylons and, from our perspective, it makes sense to use this land adjacent to the substation to add another electricity use among the pylons, even if it is technically Green Belt. Whilst we are not electricity experts we can see the logic of keeping the 275kV connection alive at this location, given how much electricity generation on the London circuit has been shut down in recent decades. The applicants have invested considerable time with us in ensuring that we are fully appraised of the what seems to us a fast moving energy transition and shift away from older plant running constantly to what seems to us is an obvious need for more nimble plant as the applicants are promoting in this case. We have ongoing relationships with National Grid and RWE so have always understood that the relative importance of the Tilbury substation in the London context. As the stint holders of Walton Common we have no difficulty with its replacement closer to the conurbation though it must be recognised that the control of fly tipping and fly grazing is a systemic and ongoing challenge on the marshes which requires constant vigilance. We are sure with the arrangements in place with the applicants this can be achieved for everybody’s benefit. We have been pleased with the approach the applicant has taken in seeking to protect and accommodate our farming interests as the scheme has developed over the last 3 years. We are aware from other parties that they have adopted a similarly open and pragmatic approach with other landowners and major interests in putting the project together, which has not always been the approach of other developers over the years. Following consultation and engagement, the changes in the project have altered what was originally agreed within our Option agreement with Thurrock Power and we have agreed Heads of Terms to implement the changes to ensure that what is reflected in the Option is inline with what has been submitted within the application. We will continue to support the scheme on the basis that the proposed amendments to the option and lease terms are implemented. In conclusion, we support the scheme and hope that it is recommended for approval."
Essex County Council
"Environment and Green Infrastructure Essex County Council currently provides advice on green infrastructure (GI) schemes for major developments in Essex. Although this proposed development is located in neighbouring Thurrock Borough, we remain keen to highlight the importance of protecting and enhancing GI, accessibility and biodiversity net gain wherever possible. Loss of saltmarsh and intertidal mudflat habitats in the footprint of causeway construction is considered to be a significant adverse effect, albeit at a very local scale, due to the vulnerability and high value of these habitat types. It is proposed that these will be mitigated by new saltmarsh habitat creation, which is welcomed. Similarly, the potential significant adverse effect of loss of grassland habitat on the main development site would be more than fully compensated for (with net biodiversity gain) by habitat creation. Unfortunately, the application is not supported by an illustrative detailed landscape/GI plan for the main site, whereas these have been provided for associated development areas. Therefore, we would recommend that this is provided so that an appropriate judgement can be made on the GI proposals. Through the right design the proposal could blend, enhance and contribute to landscape character. GI must not be seen in isolation from ‘grey’ infrastructure, but as a means to improve its performance and benefits and create new linkages in the surrounding areas to enhance and develop the existing GI networks for the area. For instance, the use of GI as part of the sustainable design would have multiple benefits. For example, green roof or walls on storage buildings would provide invertebrate habitats, reduce surface water runoff and provide aesthetics. The Development Zone Plan (Doc no: 10872-0005-53) identifies Habitat Creation and enhancement areas (Zone F) and a temporary PRoW diversion of Footpath 200 (Zone I). This along with the Illustrative Landscape Plans, outlines the landscape enhancements areas proposed. Moving forward, detailed landscape plans for all GI assets will need to be submitted. We would expect these to include a landscape for all soft landscape assets, including, naturalises solutions for attenuation ponds, buffering and proposed trees, plants and seed mixes. This should be in line with British Standards and include details of planting works such as preparation, implementation, materials (i.e. soils and mulch), any protection measures that will be put in place (i.e. rabbit guards) and any management regimes (including watering schedules) to support establishment. This should be accompanied by a schedule, with details of quantity, species and size/type (bare root, container etc). Hard landscape details such as surface materials and boundary treatments must also be included. We support the proposed recommendation for a Landscape and Ecology Management Plan for the mitigation and management of the landscape, including the protection of existing retained trees and hedgerows. We would recommend that long-term management of GI elements (and ecological management) both within and off-site is secured via appropriate legal agreements. ECC have previously suggested that a Landscape Mitigation Fund be set up and funded from the various major developments within the area and used to fund landscape mitigation projects and enable management measures/projects to be undertaken. Climate and Energy Climate change is now recognised and rated as the greatest risk/challenge facing society. In response Essex County Council has established the Essex Climate Commission to develop a proactive and deliverable strategy for achieving more resilient and adaptable places in line with Government objectives. Across Essex, more than half of districts and boroughs have declared a Climate Emergency, where urgent action needs to be taken on the causes, impacts and mitigation of climate change, including Thurrock Borough in October 2019. As a neighbouring local authority to Thurrock Borough where this proposed development is located, from a climate and energy perspective, we would like to highlight that in principle, whilst we appreciate the calculation of net negative GHG emissions, the proposal of large scale gas fired energy generation can further add to the detrimental impacts of climate change through the use of fossil fuels and is contrary to the aspirations of a greener Essex. This level of investment, whilst proposed to replace inefficient small scale gas fired energy generation sites, would reduce requirements and investment in renewable energy generation projects that would have a much greater environmental impact alongside battery storage. However, having reviewed the submitted information if the Planning Inspectorate is minded to approve the application, as a minimum we would recommend that there should be mitigation during the operational phase in order to reduce net emissions and use of the safeguarded land for carbon capture readiness from the start of operation. Minerals & Waste Planning ECC is the host Minerals and Waste Planning Authority in the two tier administrative area of Essex, and is a neighbouring authority in the context of this application. The Essex Minerals Local Plan - Adopted July 2014 (MLP) concerns the administrative area of Essex only, and seeks to ensure the sustainable use of minerals across the county. The Essex and Southend on Sea Waste Local Plan - Adopted October 2017 (WLP) concerns the administrative areas of both Essex and Southend on Sea. Thurrock Council is a unitary authority and is its own Minerals and Waste Planning Authority. Thurrock Council are the appropriate contact for minerals and waste issues in the administrative area of Thurrock, including the application of policies, details regarding existing and pending planning permissions, any site information and capacity data. Nonetheless, given the scale of this substantial application, there are potentially a number of minerals and waste implications for the administrative area of Essex arising out of this application, particularly cumulatively with other programmed significant infrastructure projects in proximity. Therefore there are a number of issues that Essex County Council (ECC) in its capacity as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority for a neighbouring county would expect this development to address. It is noted that the Environmental Statement is silent on mineral and waste matters. Both should be scoped into the Statement or addressed via other means. Minerals ECC would expect the scope of the Environmental Statement to include an assessment of the amount of aggregate needed to implement the proposed development and how this need would be phased over the construction period. The assessment should also set out the likely market areas which will supply the necessary aggregates for the development. This should cover a suitably wide geographic area and have regard to the potential for marine aggregate to be landed via the River Thames, as well as terrestrial sources. Supply considerations should be provided in the context of the current level of permitted reserves as well as the annual rate of mineral provision in relevant areas, as sourced from the latest Local Aggregate Assessments. Waste It does not seem as though waste matters associated with construction have been addressed beyond noting that ‘It is not possible to predict decommissioning and waste management methods several decades hence with certainty’. This is agreed but an assessment of waste arising from the construction of the development currently being applied for would be possible. ECC supports the application of the Waste Hierarchy and the Sustainable Management of the excavated materials and waste arisings, including recycling and potential re-use/after-uses. ECC would expect this information to be included within a Materials Balance. Any such audit and waste management strategy should identify the composition and volumes of waste arising on a phased basis during the construction phase, which aligns with the phased delivery of the proposals. These should be assessed in the context of relevant known and indicative local waste management capacity across each delivery phase unless the waste arising is clearly less than existing capacities. Synergies could be identified such as those between Construction, Demolition and Excavation waste arising and the need to restore any void space created through mineral extraction, thereby reducing the need for long distance transportation and therefore helping achieve the aims of the ‘proximity principle’ in line with the National Planning Policy for Waste."
|Members of the Public/Businesses|
BDB Pitmans LLP on behalf of London Resort Company Holdings Ltd
"The London Resort is proposed to be a world-class entertainment resort based at Swanscombe peninsula, north of Ebbsfleet, Kent, and will itself be the subject of a DCO application later in 2020. Approximately 25% of visitor road traffic is expected to be accommodated at the Port of Tilbury and there is therefore potential for the construction and operation of the Thurrock flexible generation project to have an impact on the London Resort and vice versa. London Resort Company Holdings Ltd therefore wishes to register as an interested party and reserves the right to make further submissions."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
Maritime and Coastguard Agency
"Part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency's (MCA) wide remit includes responsibilities for the safety of navigation and search and rescue in the UK. We would like to be consulted on the establishment of any infrastructure or works in or over the marine environment, and any Harbour Orders providing statutory powers for the ongoing safe operation of the facility. We would also like to consider whether the works may have any impact on MCA infrastructure in the area, which on initial inspection is unlikely. Should any works be required in or over the marine environment, a Marine Licence may be required under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009, at which time the MCA will be invited to comment on the licence application from the safety of navigation safety perspective. In addition, the MCA would point the developers in the direction of the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC) and its Guide to Good Practice; they would need to liaise and consult with any relevant Statutory Harbour Authority to develop a robust Safety Management System (SMS) for the project under this code."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
"A separate submission for the Relevant Representation has been emailed to [email protected]"
|Other Statutory Consultees|
Vincent and Gorbing on behalf of Port of Tilbury London Limited
"A representation on behalf of Port of Tilbury London Limited has been sent as an attachment to [email protected]"
|Other Statutory Consultees|
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"On behalf of Royal Mail Group and whilst my client does not have an in principle objection to the proposed scheme we are seeking to secure mitigation to protect our operations within the location of the project. 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 affected detrimentally 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 five operational facilities within 8 miles of this proposal, Grays DO, London East, West Thurrock Hub, Stanford LE Hope DO and South Ockendon DO. The location, nature and scale of the proposed Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant may present risk of construction phase impact / delays to Royal Mail’s road based operations on the surrounding road network. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of the proposed Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant. Any periods of road disruption / closure, night or day, have the potential to impact operations. Royal Mail does not wish to stop or delay Thurrock Flexible Generation Plant from coming forward for development. However, Royal Mail does wish to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivering service. In order to do this, Royal Mail requests that: 1. the DCO includes specific requirements that during the construction phase Royal Mail is consulted by Thurrock Power Ltd 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). As well as addressing the potential cumulative traffic effects arising from other proposed major developments in the area. Royal Mail reserves its position to object to the DCO application if the above requests are not adequately addressed."
"Thurrock Council Relevant Representation This Relevant Representation made is made on behalf of Thurrock Council. The Order Limits, as identified on the ‘Location Plan’ accompanying the submission, is entirely within the administrative boundary of Thurrock Council. Development Plan Policy Overview The statutory development plan for Thurrock is the Thurrock Core Strategy and Policies for the Management of Development (as adopted 2015). Table 3 of the Core Strategy lists a number of Strategic Spatial Objectives including the need to minimise the impact of climate change by supporting the provision of renewable and low carbon energy sources in Thurrock and ensuring that new development incorporates climate change adaptation (SSO17). Policy CSSP2 – Sustainable Employment and Growth identifies the ‘Key Strategic Economic Hub’ of Tilbury as a ‘Growth Sector’ for energy. Paragraph 5.156 identifies that the ‘The Thurrock Climate Change Evidence Base’ identifies increasing renewable and low carbon energy generation as a priority. The pre-amble to Policy CSTP26 states that ‘Thurrock presents unique opportunities for encouraging inter alia low carbon energy generation projects’. Policy CSTP26 encourages opportunities to generate energy from non fossil fuel and low carbon sources at appropriate locations, including Tilbury. The site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt and Table of the Core Strategy reference SSO11 seeks to sustain and enhance the open character of the Green Belt in Thurrock and only allow development in very special circumstances. Policy CSSP4 identifies that the Council will ‘maintain the purpose function and open character of the Green Belt in Thurrock’, and policy PMD6 states that the Council will ‘maintain, protect and enhance the open character of the Green Belt in Thurrock’. These policies aim to prevent urban sprawl and maintain the essential characteristics of the openness and permanence of the Green Belt in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF. Development Plan Policy Designation The Order Limits is subject to the following planning policy designations as defined by the Core Strategy policies map: • Green Belt; • Primary Industrial and Commercial Areas; • Green Chains; and • Local Nature Reserves. It is notable that some areas within the Order Limits have no land use policy designations within the Core Strategy. Summary of Main Issues / Impacts The Council considers that the main issues and impacts associated with the proposals are as follows: • Green Belt • Ecology and Nature Conservation • Landscape and Visual Impact • Heritage Assets • Flood Risk and Hydrology • Geology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions • Traffic and Transport • Air Quality • Noise and Vibration • Land Use and Agriculture, and Socio-Economics • Human Health • Climate Change • Cumulative Impact The matters raised at this stage shall need to be subject of further review through the Local Impact Report, which will be reported to a planning committee and this will set out the Council’s position in more detail, along with a Written Representations document. For the purposes of this Relevant Representation the below paragraphs set out the main issues and impacts as considered by the Council. • Green Belt Impact: The principal consideration with this DCO, in planning terms, is the proposed development’s impact upon Thurrock’s Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposal is considered ‘inappropriate development’ with reference to paragraphs 143 and 145 of the NPPF and paragraphs 5.10.10 and 5.10.17 of the NPS EN-1, and this is acknowledged in the applicant’s Statement of Case, para 4.152. The proposal would therefore have an impact upon the openness of the Green Belt but the Council will need to assess whether the applicant’s five factors put forward as ‘very special circumstances’ outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. These matters will need further consideration. • Ecology and Nature Conservation: The applicant’s Statement of Case identifies the nearest ecological designation is the Mucking Flats and Marshes SSSI, the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and Ramsar sites as well as a number of Local Wildlife Sites. The Council will assess the likely effects upon these areas along with the likely effects upon biodiversity, habitats and all ecological species. The potential impacts on ecology during construction and operation, as well as proposals to mitigate impact are therefore relevant considerations. The Council’s Landscape and Ecology Advisor identifies that the ecological surveys are appropriate; that the loss of a significant part of Walton Common which includes remnant coastal grazing marsh, a habitat of principle importance that was to be included in a Local Wildlife Site; that a Habitat Regulation Assessment identifies the need for mitigation for water quality and hydrological impact as the site is close to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA; the construction and use of the causeway results in the loss of saltmarsh and risks water contamination to the SPA; and the Illustrative Landscape Plan and an Outline Ecological Management Plan does show large new ponds either side of main buildings however it is not clear if these have potential to provide additional ecological mitigation so all these matters will need further consideration. • Landscape and Visual Impact: The site is not within any national landscape designations but the Council will give consideration to site’s location in the ‘Greater Thames Estuary’ National Character Area and the ‘Tilbury Marshes’ Thurrock character area. The site is a low-lying, flat landform but is dominated by existing electricity infrastructure the immediate vicinity of the development area, which comprises of a sub station (to the south) and numerous pylons. The visual impacts from various viewpoints will also be assessed. Accordingly landscape and visual impact is a relevant issue for consideration. The Council’s Landscape and Ecology Advisor identifies that that this low lying largely flat marshland landscape could be subject to significant landscape effects alone and in combination with other developments in the area from buildings between 12.5m and 15.8m and 48 stacks that would be 40m high, with the design yet to be finalised. These matters will need further consideration. • Heritage Assets: it is noted that there are no designated heritage assets within the site. The Statement of Case identifies that within 1 -3km of the site there are six Scheduled Monuments (forts, blockhouses or anti-aircraft batteries and one earthworks) two Conservation Areas (West Tilbury and East Tilbury), and five listed buildings, including one Grade II* building being the Church of St James in West Tilbury. It is recognised that there is the potential for archaeological remains. The Council will consider impact upon heritage assets as a relevant consideration. The Council’s Historic Environment Advisor considers that there are inconsistencies within the Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment (ES Vol 6: Appendix 7.1) and the Environmental Statement (ES), in some instances the assessment is not considered robust enough, as well as lacking in information such as visualisations from key heritage assets. As such, it is considered that the applicant has not fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 189 of the NPPF, as the assessment is not sufficient enough to understand the potential impact of the proposed development on the significance of the identified heritage assets The issues include the list of heritage assets in the ES, which do not marry up with those set out at section 4.7 of the Historic Environment Desk Based Assessment (ES Vol 6: Appendix 7.1), the grade I listed church of St Katherine and grade II listed Old Rectory are not assessed in the ES, the setting for the relevant heritage assets including in section 4.1 of the ES is not considered in enough detail and not assessed in line with Historic England guidance document GPA3: The Setting of Heritage Assets (2017), such as grade II* Church of St James, which should be assessed separately to the conservation area that is located in as the church is situated on elevated ground with long views over the marshland. The Planning Statement of Case has identified that there would be less than substantial harm to the West Tilbury Conservation Area as a result of the proposed development. It is considered however that due to the reasons set out above, further assessment of the relevant heritage assets is required in order to assess impact. As such, it is considered that this harm may change or may extend to other heritage assets. The Council’s Historic Environment Advisor for Archaeology has commented that further information is required as the lack of fieldwork has resulted in a lack of evidence as to the impact of the development on the below ground archaeological impacts. At present there is no field assessment of much of the area for the proposed development. These matters will need further consideration. • Flood Risk and Hydrology: The area, including land within the Order Limits is generally flat, low-lying former marshland located on the northern bank of the River Thames. The site is located within a medium and high risk flood area (flood zones 2 and 3a). In accordance with the NPPF the Council will give consideration to the flood risk including the Sequential Test and Exception Test (if necessary), the applicant’s Flood Risk Assessment and relevant ES chapter (including hydrology impacts). The issue of flood risk is therefore a relevant consideration. The Council’s Flood Risk Manager has advised that there are a number of points of detail which need to be clarified regarding discharge details, water quality, maintenance and existing watercourses. These matters will need further consideration. The Council’s Emergency Planner acknowledges that the application includes a Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan but further information is required to include a safe refuge area when evacuation is not feasible, and details of actions for contractors and staff to take, in the event that the local flood defence system is breached or overtopped. • Geology, Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions: It is recognised that parts of the site have historically been used for agricultural use so is not likely to be subject of ground contamination. The wider area includes the former coal-fired Tilbury Power Station and substation, historic landfills and former brickworks in Low Street. Accordingly there is the potential for ground contamination and this issue, along with proposals for associated remediation and the impacts upon hydrogeology, are relevant considerations. The Council’s Environmental Health Contaminated Land Officer has no objections subject to the recommendations as set out in the ‘Phase 2 Site Investigation Report’. • Traffic and Transport: It is recognised that the potential impact of additional vehicle movements on the local road network, including the route to the site, during the construction of the development is an important relevant consideration. The Council also considers that the relationship between the proposal and the local walking and cycle network, including public rights of way are relevant considerations. The Council’s Highway Officer has no comments to make at this time but any future comment will be considered in the Local Impact Report and Written Representations stage of the process. The Council’s Landscape and Ecology Advisor identifies that the new pedestrian link to the replacement common land does not link to an existing footway so alternatives will be necessary, and temporary footpath closes along the Thames Estuary Path would impact walkers. These matters will need further consideration. • Air Quality: The proposal would give rise to emissions from construction vehicles on the road network and from the operation phase of the development from the gas engine exhausts. The impacts on air quality from the construction and operational phases of development, including emissions from vehicles are relevant considerations. The Council’s Environmental Health Air Quality Officer has no objections as long as all appropriate mitigation measures are undertaken for limiting dust during the construction phase. Also, the Council’s Air Quality Officer recommends mitigation on the power plant operational side in terms of adopting the use of SCR if it is feasible to further limit any emissions of NO2 from this development. • Noise and Vibration: The proposal would give rise to noise for human and ecological receptors from the construction phase and operational phase of the development. The impacts of noise and vibration from construction activities and during the operational phase of the development are relevant considerations. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer has no objection as the findings of the noise documentation (conclusions in Chapter 11 Paragraph 5) are accepted and the cumulative effects for the construction, operational and decommissioning phases of this development, Tilbury 2 and the Lower Thames Crossing are predicted to be small. • Land Use and Agriculture, and Socio-Economics: Reference is made to the potential impacts of the development on agricultural land use, common land, recreational resources and socio-economic impacts of job creation. These impacts arising from the proposals during construction and operation are therefore an issue for consideration. The Council’s Landscape and Ecology Advisor recognises that the loss of a significant part of Walton Common which includes remnant coastal grazing marsh, as a land use that has a habitat of principle importance that was to be included in a Local Wildlife Site. It is recognised that some of the land within the Order Limits is agricultural land and this will be considered along with the common land exchange and recreational benefits. It is agreed that job creation could be beneficial to the local economy. • Human Health: Reference is made to the health assessment within the application and these include air pollution, noise pollution and traffic levels, and these matters are relevant considerations. The Council’s Public Health Officer has noise concerns on and would require further discussion or information on the assessed health impact of noise on local residents, which appears to be underestimated in relation to the existing population. Local residents already experience higher rates of long-term conditions. Welcome the proposed mitigation measures in terms of reduced working hours during the construction phase. One of our concerns was that during the operational phase there could be an escalation of noise during night time hours which could result in interrupted sleep and it is not clearly defined how often this would occur. • Climate Change: The emission of greenhouse gases due to the burning of natural gas fuel from the gas engines throughout the lifetime of the development would impact upon climate change and therefore this impact is a relevant consideration. • Cumulative Impact: Relevant consideration will be given to the Port of Tilbury expansion project referred to as Tilbury 2 as an existing Development Consent Order, along with the Lower Thames Crossing and the London Resort, both of which are identified as future Development Consent Order applications. Relevant consideration will also be given to any planning applications within or adjacent the Order Limits, particularly any significant major planning application. Although stated in the applicant’s ‘Statement of Case and Green Belt Statement’, the following matters are not considered relevant to the Council’s consideration with this application: • Combined Heat and Power: It is explained in the applicant’s documentation that the use of Combined Heat and Power is unsuitable to provide heat to heat customers from gas engines as a peaking generation facility and is therefore unsuitable. The Council does not intend to contest this view. • Marine Environment: The applicant makes reference to considering the marine and hydrological environment within the Thames Estuary. This is considered as a relevant consideration for the relevant agencies (Environment Agency, MMO and PLA) that manage and use the marine environment but not considered a relevant consideration to the Council’s considerations as our jurisdiction only extends as far as the low water mark."
|Other Statutory Consultees|
"Please see Attached"