Tilbury2

Representations received regarding Tilbury2

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Tilbury2 and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Colin Elliott
"As a resident and homeowner that lives near to the proposed road and rail links in the development i am concerned about noise, air and lighting pollution from these links. Noise and air pollution are already a problem as a result of the EMR plant situated in the Port of Tilbury the local enviromental agency is currently involved with this issue. I feel the existing road that goes around the Ferry fields could be upgraded rather than putting a new road near to residential area. This road if built could eventually become even more of a nuisance road to residents when the proposed relief road connecting to the new Thames crossing is built as traffic from the tilbury 2 will use this leaving the proposed road for Tilbury 2 virtually unused and a place for boy racers to use already a problem in Tilbury town. What do the Port of Tilbury intend to do for homeowners like my self whose property value could be affected, The case put forward by the Port for protecting the view of visitors to Tilbury Fort does not hold any real substance or creedance as the Fort is only open a couple of days a week and has very few visitors.Will noise control measures be put in place on the site of Tilbury 2 as noise would travel across from there to residential areas especially of a night. I am a diabetic and my wife suffers from asthma so all this development could affect our health even more. We have lived here for 35 years and in Tilbury for 44 years altogether and so are well aware of the affect this development will have on the area. There are already traffic issues in Tilbury with the asda roundabout being the main area for traffic in to tilbury and the port, when there is an accident or a bomb scare as with have had recently the traffic has nowhere else to go and so backs up along the A1089 with long queues and even more air pollution this would also result in traffic being congested on the proposed road link close to residents subjecting them to more air pollution. I thank you for letting me air my views on Tilbury 2"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Historic England
"Historic England are a statutory consultee on these proposals which would impact upon a range of designated and undesignated heritage assets. Our representations will principally concern the impacts which the proposals would have on the setting and significance of Tilbury Fort, a scheduled monument in the guardianship of the English Heritage Trust. We judge Tilbury Fort to be of exceptional significance and that the impact of the proposed development on its setting would cause severe harm to its significance. In view of this, we wish the examiner to consider whether the applicants have done all that is possible in order to minimise this harm, before weighing the public benefits arising from the proposed development against those of conserving and sustaining this designated heritage asset. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Stephen Aldridge
"I own an apartment dead opposite the proposed new port terminal - Tilbury 2 Ref: TR030003.   ,   ,   ,   ,   . My Objection would be the excessive noise whilst building commences + if the roll on /roll off terminal would operate 24 hours a day the noise generated at all hours may become unbearable. What would be the government / Tilbury 2's plan to minimise any disruption to the local and residents that live across the Thames. we have already noticed a downturn in the property prices since this planning application started, some apartments only reaching 90 to 95% of their real price. Are there any proposals being put in place. S.ALDRIDGE "
Members of the Public/Businesses
London Port Health Authority
"The following two points depend on the position of the customs boundary for Tilbury 2. 1) Dependant on trade at the roll on roll off terminal, we may require the port to provide an examination facility, to carry out physical checks on food and feed. The facility size and design may be influenced by whether there is third country trade in food or feed and the outcome of BREXIT. 2) The warehousing may need to be registered or approved by the London Port Health Authority. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Buglife- The Invertebrate Conservation Trust
"Buglife welcomes the opportunity to make representations on proposals for the Tilbury 2 development. While pleased to note the inclusion of detailed invertebrate surveys, Buglife would like to make the following representations: • The application site supports a nationally important assemblage of invertebrates, with 1,397 species recorded in the 2016/17 surveys, including 159 species (11.4%) of conservation concern and 2.2% identified as rare or threatened, a very high proportion. Ten species listed in Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities (NERC) Act 2006 were recorded, however the potential impact on five other Section 41 species previously recorded in 2007 must also be considered. • The site supports an outstanding resource of Open mosaic habitats on previously developed land (OMHPDL), a habitat of conservation priority listed under Section 41 of the NERC Act. Buglife considers the ES to have significantly underestimated its resource at only 9.3ha. This resource needs to include the wider mosaic of early successional habitats such as: Pulverised Fuel Ash (PFA), Lytag and other substrates, drought stressed grasslands and lichen heath, herb and lichen-rich grasslands, and their interaction with relict grazing marshes and ditches, scrub and ruderal resources. None of these habitats should be considered in isolation, even where individual habitats are not of Section 41 habitat quality. • The site was identified as of high potential in the All of a Buzz in the Thames Gateway project (2005-7). Subsequent Buglife studies (2013) have shown up to 51% of these sites were lost or potentially lost in six years. This development would add to the progressive loss of wildlife-rich brownfields and threaten the long-term future of the nationally important invertebrate assemblages in the region. • Buglife strongly reject any suggestions that the site is declining in value due to succession - the ES itself confirms, that despite some later successional species gaining prominence “the general character of skeletal and early-successional vegetation remains intact.” The 2016 invertebrate survey confirms that although there have been habitat changes on site, the species data between 2008 and 2016 show “very little difference and perhaps none of ecological consequence.” • There is an absence of any clear mitigation and compensation proposals. The very small areas of retained habitat on site are likely to have little function for the current interest, leading to significant biodiversity losses. There is also insufficient information on the proposed compensation. Indeed the ‘Figure 10.13 On-site ecological mitigation & compensation’ document only confirms that the details are confidential. In addition the ‘Mitigation Route Plan’ states that “Details of the construction of created habitats will be set out in the Ecological Mitigation and Compensation Plan (EMCP)”. These document must be made fully available and scrutinised prior to any decisions being made. Buglife were happy to engage with the Port of Tilbury and their ecology team in the early stages to discuss the application, including potential mitigation and compensation. Disappointingly, however, Buglife have not been involved in any of the plans to develop the mitigation and compensation or even kept informed of its developments. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Essex Field Club
"We strongly object to these proposals as they are currently presented. The very high nature conservation importance of the old Tilbury Power Station site is well known from previous surveys, especially for the presence of rare and Priority Species invertebrate species and nationally important assemblages. Survey undertaken in 2017 re-enforces this importance, although we disagree with the 2017 report’s assessment of the relative value of parts of the site. We reject any suggestions that the site is declining in value due to succession - the ES itself confirms, that despite some later successional species gaining prominence “the general character of skeletal and early-successional vegetation remains intact.” The 2016 invertebrate survey confirms that although there have been habitat changes on site, the species data between 2008 and 2016 show “very little difference and perhaps none of ecological consequence.” The site forms a core part of the nationally important metapopulations which currently survive between Thurrock and Canvey and which largely depend on a handful of ancient remnant unimproved Thames Terrace grasslands and a small number of high value Open Mosaic Habitat brownfield sites, of which the Tilbury Power Station site is a key example. The proposals would result in the complete loss of Local Wildlife Sites Th39 Lytag Brownfield and Th40 Tilbury Centre. The Lytag Site provides an irreplaceable lytag substrate which supports nationally important invertebrate assemblages and important lichen communities that cannot simply be re-created or moved elsewhere. The loss of the Lytag and Tilbury Centre LoWS areas would almost certainly be catastrophic for the regional biodiversity of the south Essex region and its national importance, especially the metapopulations of the rare and scarce species which require a landscape scale network of high quality sites to survive. The proposals also include a new link road is between Ferry Road and Fort Road crossing the most important part of common land forming part of yet another Local Wildlife Site Th37 Tilbury Marshes. The high density of anthills present on this triangular section of Fort Road Common on the west side of Fort Road south of the railway line clearly indicates that this represents ancient grassland and is almost certainly of immense value, at least for its grassland invertebrate fauna and for its ancient grassland history. This ancient grassland cannot be replaced. Once lost and damaged by road works, it is lost forever. The 2017 survey of this section of land was inadequate for this type of habitat. If these proposals were to be given approval, there would need to be very substantial and carefully planned off-site compensation to minimise impacts on biodiversity in Thurrock and the Thames corridor. However there is an absence of any clear mitigation and compensation proposals. The very small areas of retained habitat on site are likely to have little function for the current interest, leading to major biodiversity losses. There is also insufficient information on the proposed compensation. Full information must be made fully available and scrutinised prior to any decisions being made."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Crown Estate
"Some of the land that would be required for the proposed development including that needed for the improvement and extension of the jetty is Crown land forming part of The Crown Estate. The undertaker will need to be granted appropriate rights from the Crown Estate Commissioners to enable it to carry out the proposed development on such land. Pursuant to section 135(1) and 135(2) of the Planning Act 2008 the inclusion of relevant provisions in any development consent order that relate to Crown land forming part of The Crown Estate will require the consent of the Crown Estate Commissioners. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Health and Safety Executive
"The redline boundary of the development falls within the consultation zones of a major accident hazard site: Port of Tilbury London Ltd. HSE would not advise against the development of the port terminal. However if any occupied buildings are to be built as part of the project, for example control buildings, visitor centres, retail parks, and facilities intended for outdoor use by the public, then we would advise that further consultation be sought from HSE as these might not be compatible with the major accident hazard sites depending on location. There are currently no pipelines within the development. If, in the intervening period, we are notified of a change to this situation the applicant would need to seek advice from us. We note that the Operator and the Applicant are the same. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Essex Chambers of Commerce
"I am writing on behalf of Essex Chambers of Commerce who are a countywide business membership organisation of which the Port of Tilbury Limited are members. We have around a thousand members ranging from small businesses through to national and international companies and as part of our support to businesses generally offer a range of services for exporters. We have seen the growth in demand for the services that Forth Ports offer through their existing port at Tilbury and from our own experiences and engagement with businesses fully concur with their arguments for the construction of Tilbury 2. We agree that the development will be of major benefit to exporters and importers post Britain leaving the EU in handling trade not just from the EU but elsewhere around the globe. The development will also bring major economic benefits to Thurrock and the wider area in terms of job creation and security and ensure Tilbury's contribution to the local economy continues and is safeguarded. Tilbury 2 will enhance the local, regional and national economy, we therefore support Forth Ports application for development consent for this project and urge that consent is granted. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills on behalf of London Resort Company Holdings Limited
"London Resort Company Holdings Limited (LRCH) is promoting a world-class entertainment resort and associated transport and other infrastructure at Swanscombe peninsula in Kent, on the opposite side of the River Thames to Tilbury Port. London Resort has been accepted as a business and commercial NSIP by the Secretary of State, and will be the subject of a DCO application. During the examination of the Tilbury2 DCO application, LRCH will present evidence on: 1. the status and proposed content of the London Resort project; 2. the predicted cumulative environmental effects of Tilbury2 and the London Resort, including transport and traffic effects; 3. LRCH's proposals to use the River Thames and facilities at Tilbury Port during the construction of London Resort. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
English Heritage
"The English Heritage Trust is licensed to manage Tilbury Fort as part of the National Heritage Collection by the Historic Monuments & Buildings Commission for England. Tilbury Fort is one of England’s best preserved examples of 17th-century military engineering, with a design that set the standard along the River Thames for the following 200 years. It is our view that the proposed Tilbury2 development would negatively impact the historical significance, ecological value and commercial operation of Tilbury Fort. Our representation will detail our belief that the proposals would have a direct and negative impact on the setting of the monument, both on the riverward side and inland. As a coastal defence, the connecting views between fort and river were an important aspect of the fort’s historic design and remain a significant part of its setting. Equally, to see the monument surrounded by development on the landward side, as the current proposal suggests, would vastly reduce the amount of visual connection the fort has to the landscape. To degrade the setting in this way would severely impair the ability to understand the very essence of the Monument and its original design and purpose. National policies and best practice guidelines for the conservation and sustainable management of the historic environment are clear as to how heritage values should be assessed and we do not believe that the Tilbury2 proposals have been drawn up in line with these documents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Mark G Telfer
"I would like to be kept informed of the progress of the Examination and to be notified of the final Decision by the Secretary of State. My particular interest is to see that the evidence from invertebrate survey work at Tilbury2 is fully, accurately and appropriately considered by the Examination, and that the decision reflects the importance of Tilbury2 for invertebrates."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"PROPOSED PORT TERMINAL AT TILBURY POWER STATION – "TILBURY 2" PLANNING INSPECTORATE REFERENCE: TR030003 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 the Port of Tilbury London Limited's (POTLL) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) which seeks powers to enable the expansion of the Port of Tilbury (Scheme). The Book of Reference identifies a number of plots of land in respect of which Network Rail has a property interest and in respect of which compulsory acquisition powers are sought by the Order. Those plots are as follows: 02/03, 02/04, 03/01, 03/02, 03/03, 03/12 and 03/16 (Plots). The compulsory acquisition powers sought include: • rights to acquire land permanently; • rights to acquire land temporarily; and • the acquisition of rights over land. (together the Compulsory Powers). Network Rail is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. It objects to the acquisition of the Compulsory Powers. Network Rail notes that there are three primary interfaces (Interfaces) between its land and its operational railway and the Scheme. Those interfaces include: • The existing connection to the London, Tilbury and Southend line (Mainline) (Tilbury Port Junction), currently serving POTLL's Tilbury Riverside Terminal, that will instead serve POTLL's proposed new Tilbury 2 rail terminal; • The proposed closure of a public footpath and level crossing over the Mainline; and • The extension of a road bridge that crosses the Mainline so that it also crosses the new rail siding and highway that are proposed as part of the Scheme. The Interfaces require a number of agreements between Network Rail and POTLL to be agreed including an asset protection agreement and a property agreement. Network Rail is committed to working constructively with POTLL to negotiate the necessary agreements but until the necessary agreements have been completed, to safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Compulsory Powers and any other powers affecting Network Rail in the Order. The Plots constitute land acquired by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 and sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Lock Associates on behalf of Northfleet Property LLP
"Northfleet Property LLP own land at the former Northfleet Works. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has resolved to grant Outline planning permission for a Mixed Use Development under planning application EDC/16/0004 on this land. These proposals will involve the future removal of Bevans Wharf. Northfleet Property LLP would ask that these proposals are taken into account in considering the Tilbury 2 proposals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
RWE Generation UK Plc
"RWE Generation UK Plc (RWE) wishes to register as an Interested Party as it will be affected by the Tilbury 2 development by virtue of its impact on RWE’s retained operational interest in the Tilbury Power Station site which adjoins the proposed Tilbury 2 development. Whilst RWE does not oppose the principle of the Tilbury 2 development, it will wish to ensure that its following interests are adequately protected by the terms of any resulting Development Consent Order for the Tilbury 2 project: 1. RWE has the benefit of a number of existing property rights over the Order Limits of the Tilbury 2 application primarily for the purposes of access, services and cooling water infrastructure. RWE is a statutory undertaker for the purposes of the Planning Act 2008 as it holds an electricity generation licence under section 6(1) (a) Electricity Act 1989 and has rights relating to its statutory undertaking which would be affected by the provisions of the draft DCO. In particular, the draft DCO contains provisions proposing to revoke RWE’s existing works licence granted under the Port of London Act 1968 and provisions which would allow the Applicant to extinguish its existing rights. For the purposes of sections 127 and 138 Planning Act 2008, RWE does not consider that its interests are adequately protected by the terms of the draft DCO submitted as part of the application 2. RWE has recently announced that it will submit its own DCO application for an energy centre on the Tilbury Power Station site. The proposed development, known as the Tilbury Energy Centre (TEC), will consist of a combined cycle gas turbine power station (up to 2500MW), an open cycle gas turbine power station (up to 300MW) and an energy storage development. The TEC project has been notified to PINS and a scoping request is due to be submitted early in 2018 with a view to an application being submitted in Q4 2018. The Order Limits of the two projects are likely to overlap, construction periods may be concurrent, and operation elements of the Tilbury 2 project have the potential to affect RWE proposals. RWE believes that the DCO should contain provisions to address the requirements of both parties in delivering their respective projects. Given the property rights that RWE retain on the Tilbury 2 site and its proposal for the TEC, it is imperative that suitable protective provisions are introduced into the proposed DCO to enable RWE to continue using its operational site, now and in the future, in an unfettered manner. There are several particular aspects of the Tilbury 2 proposal that may impact on RWE’s existing property rights and its plans to develop the TEC, including: Jetty Improvements – The proposed jetty improvements and new Harbour powers sought by the Tilbury 2 DCO have the potential to impact on RWE’s ability to use and improve its existing and possible new cooling water infrastructure required for the TEC in the River Thames. Access and Services – RWE’s retained operational site relies on access through the Tilbury 2 site. There is also a retained service corridor which RWE will require for its future development of the TEC. The Rail Spur. - It is noted that the proposed rail spur will cross the corridor reserved for RWE’s access and services. Construction Materials and Aggregates Terminal (CMAT). - The CMAT will be located on land adjacent to RWE’s proposed TEC. The proposed combined cycle and open cycle power station elements of the TEC have large air intakes which are required to cool sensitive electricity generating equipment. These intakes are sensitive to particulates, therefore dust generating activities in close proximity to the development could have a significant detrimental impact on RWE’s operations. Other potential impacts of the Tilbury 2 proposed development may be identified as RWE further develops its proposals for the TEC and any such impacts should also be mitigated using a comprehensive set of protective provisions in the absence of any other adequate agreement between RWE and the Applicant. RWE has and will continue to engage with the Applicant to discuss these issues. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Lock Associates on behalf of Tarmac Ltd
"Tarmac own and operate a Bulk Powders Import Terminal at the former Northfleet Works which is served by the River Thames via 42 Wharf. Tarmac also have planning permission for a Bulk Aggregates Import Terminal also served by 42 Wharf. Further, Tarmac have recently submitted an application to Ebbsfleet Development Corporation for the use of 42 Wharf to support a temporary construction materials logistics facility in connection with the Thames Tideway project. Tarmac would ask that these permitted and proposed uses are taken into account in considering the Tilbury 2 proposals. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Environment Agency
"NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER FOR A PROPOSED NEW PORT TERMINAL - TILBURY 2 SECTION 56 (2) PLANNING ACT 2008 AND REGULATION 13 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2009. FORT ROAD, TILBURY, ESSEX, RM18 7NR Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the application for a Development Consent Order for the proposed Tilbury 2 development. We have inspected the application as submitted and our relevant representations are provided below. 1.0 The Role of the Environment Agency 1.1 The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee on all applications for development consent orders. We have a responsibility for protecting and improving the environment, as well as contributing to sustainable development. 1.2 We have three main roles: (i) We are an environmental regulator – we take a risk-based approach and target our effort to maintain and improve environmental standards and to minimise unnecessary burdens on business. We issue a range of permits and consents. (ii) We are an environmental operator – we are a national organisation that operates locally. We work with people and communities across England to protect and improve the environment in and integrated way. We provide a vital incident response capability. (iii) We are an environmental advisor – we compile and assess the best available evidence and use this to report on the state of the environment. We use our own monitoring information and that of others to inform this activity. We provide technical information and advice to national and local governments to support their roles in policy and decision-making. One of our specific functions is as a Flood Risk Management Authority. We have a general supervisory duty relating to specific flood risk management matters in respect of flood risk arising from Main Rivers or the sea. 2.0 - Hydrogeology and Ground conditions 2.1 The site could contain contamination from previous uses. The northern part of the new port area was reportedly used for historic tipping, other previous uses of the site could also pose a risk of contamination. Development work at the site, including remediation work and piling, could disturb contamination and open up pollution pathways which could result in pollution of the underlying groundwater. 2.2 A full preliminary risk assessment should be provided by the applicant including sources of evidence that have informed the report. This could include historic maps, operational plans, building blueprints and pollution incidents that have occurred at the site. Currently the draft Construction and Environmental Management Plan (October 2017) (CEMP) refers to the Environment Agency Groundwater Protection: Principles and Practice and this has been superseded. 2.3 A requirement could be used to address the issues related to contaminated land, and we would suggest this should include the following wording:- Following the grant of the DCO no development shall take place until a scheme that includes the following components to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Environment Agency • A preliminary risk assessment (1) which has identified all previous uses, potential contaminants associated with those uses and a conceptual model of the site indicating sources, pathways and receptors of potentially unacceptable risks arising from contamination at the site. • A site investigation scheme (2), based on (1) to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors, including those off site that may be affected. • The results of the site investigation and detailed risk assessment referred to in (2) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy (3) giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. • A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in the remediation strategy in (3) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer-term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangements for contingency action. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 2.4 With respect to piles and ground improvement techniques, a foundation works risk assessment will be required. This should consider the impacts of possible detriment to water quality via infiltration 3.0 - Flood Risk Across the Estuary TE2100 Policy 3.1 The site benefits from the presence of flood defences, which defend Tilbury to a 1 in 1000 (0.1%) annual probability standard of protection. This figure relates to the risk of flooding at the site in any given year. The site is also within the area covered by the Environment Agency’s Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) Plan. 3.2 The TE2100 Plan was published in November 2012, setting out our recommendations for flood risk management for London and the Thames Estuary through to the end of the century and beyond. This site is located within the Purfleet, Grays and Tilbury unit, which has a policy of “P4”. Policy P4 is to take further action to keep up with climate and land use change so that flood risk does not increase (Page 44 of TE2100 Plan). 3.3 The TE2100 Plan is an aspirational document, rather than a definitive policy, so whether the defences are raised in the future will be dependent on a cost benefit analysis and the required funding becoming available. If the defences are able to be raised, the proposed development will be protected from flooding during the 1 in 1000 annual probability event in line with climate change. TE2100 Plan for Tilbury Barrier 3.4 The TE2100 Plan takes an adaptive approach to managing flood risk. One identified option for managing this risk in the future is for a new barrier to provide flood protection to London and beyond which would replace the existing Thames Barrier. The Tilbury area is identified as a potential location for a new barrier. It is expected that a final decision on the location of a future barrier will be taken by 2050 and will be determined by a number of factors including changing sea levels related to climate change. 3.5 It is estimated that construction of a future barrier would require at least 6ha of land on the north bank and thereafter a smaller area to allow for the operation of the new barrier. Construction of a new barrier at Tilbury could potentially have an impact on the future operations at the port and impact on berthing and navigation of ships using the port. Whilst further work is being undertaken to identify the most suitable location for the future barrier, we have been discussing the potential impact with the applicant at the pre-application stage of the DCO. 3.6 Given the ongoing work to identify the final location of a new barrier and timescales involved, it is important continuing dialogue takes place between us and the Port of Tilbury. A draft memorandum of understanding (MoU) regarding this issue has been produced by the Port of Tilbury and is currently being considered by us. 4.0 - Flood Risk on Site 4.1 The National Policy Statement (NPS) for Ports reflects the policy and guidance on flood risk contained within the national planning policy framework and planning practice guidance. Our flood risk maps show the site lies within tidal Flood Zone 3a, defined by the ‘Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change’ as having a high probability of flooding. The proposal is for a new port and infrastructure corridor, which is classified as a ‘water compatible’ development, as defined in Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification of the Planning Practice Guidance. Therefore, to comply with national policy the application is required to pass the Sequential Test and be supported by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). 4.2 We have reviewed the submitted Level 3 flood risk assessment (FRA), by AECOM, referenced 6.2 16.B and dated 03.10.2017, and consider it does not comply with the requirements set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, Flood Risk and Coastal Change, Reference ID: 7-030-20140306. It does not, therefore, provide a suitable basis for assessment to be made of the flood risks arising from the proposed development. Flood Risk Modelling 4.3 The site is currently protected by flood defences above the present-day 0.1% (1 in 1000) annual probability flood event, and the defences will continue to offer protection over the lifetime of the development, provided that the TE2100 policy is followed and the defences are raised in line with climate change, which is dependent on future funding. 4.4 Therefore the FRA has undertaken breach flood modelling to determine the flood levels on the site and the rest of the Tilbury flood compartment, both for the existing baseline scenario, and the proposed development. We have a number of concerns with some of the methods used. Our River Thames flood levels have recently been remodelled and updated. We have also recently had new national breach modelling guidance issued. The use of the new flood levels and breach modelling guidance may result in different breach modelling outputs. 4.5 The Port of Tilbury consultant should obtain the new flood levels and breach guidance and determine the effects of using the new flood levels and modelling guidance, and whether it would have an impact on the breach modelling. If the outputs would be lower than the current breach modelling then it would be considered acceptable to use the existing breach modelling. If the outputs would be higher than the breach modelling should be revised. Flood Risk Modelling - Offsite Flood Risk Analysis 4.6 The FRA states that if the breach modelling showed alterations to the flood depths as a result of the proposed works that were less than 100mm deep, then these were removed from the maps, as with the Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) method of modelling, accuracy is considered to be /-150mm. 4.7 We do not consider that this is an appropriate approach as it prevents the full assessment of the offsite impacts of the proposed works being shown, and especially since if the error in LIDAR is in the other direction then the actual difference in flood depths could be 250mm, which would be a significant alteration to flood depths, and therefore needs to be shown on the maps. We consider differences in flood depths below 100mm should be shown on the maps. Flood Risk Modelling - Offsite Increase in Flood Depths 4.8 The FRA states that the breach modelling shows that the proposed works will reduce the flood depths in Tilbury town but will increase the flood depths in two fields, one to the east of Fort Road and one to the north west of Tilbury Fort. The FRA only provides depth bands but no specific information on the increase in offsite flood risk. Without specific information on flood levels and flood depths the precise increase in flood depths is not known, and therefore it may be difficult for the Planning Inspectorate to determine whether this increase in flood depths is acceptable. 4.9 The FRA should provide information on the specific flood levels and depths in these fields, both with the baseline scenario and the proposed works, and therefore provide details of the precise increase in flood depths, not just the depth bands as shown on the maps. The Planning Inspectorate will need to determine whether this increase in flood depths is acceptable. The applicant may want to obtain agreement from the affected landowners regarding the potential increases in flood depths in a breach flood. Flood Risk Modelling - Tilbury Flood Storage Areas Embankments 4.10 It is not clear whether the existing embankments for the Tilbury East and West Flood Storage Areas have been taken into account in the breach modelling, as there doesn’t appear to be a reduction in flood depths within the flood storage areas, as we would expect. It needs to be ensured that the flood storage areas are accurately represented, as they may not be at risk of tidal flooding, and therefore the potential flood depths in the remaining areas may be higher than currently shown on the maps. The Tilbury East and West Flood Storage Area embankments should be included within the breach model. Flood Risk Modelling - Infrastructure corridor culvert modelling 4.11 Section 6.2 of the FRA states that the infrastructure corridor reduces flood risk to Tilbury town as it provides a barrier to the flood flows, reducing the flood volumes passing into Tilbury and therefore the resultant flood depths. It then explains how the infrastructure corridor will incorporate culverts, including new culverts over the existing open channels of Chadwell Cross Sewer and East Tilbury Dock Sewer which will ‘enable flows from a future breach event on the Tilbury2 site to propagate to surrounding areas similar to the baseline scenario’. This seems to indicate that these culverts were not included within the proposed scenario breach modelling , particularly since section 4.2 on the breach modelling methodology states that 4 culverts were included in the modelling, and there are 4 replacement culverts proposed around Fort Road, and the two new culverts are in addition to these four replacement culverts. 4.12 Without the six new and replacement culverts accurately represented in the modelling, the actual impacts of the infrastructure corridor on the flood risk to Tilbury and other offsite areas is not accurately known. 4.13 It should be ensured that all six of the proposed new and replacement culverts are included within the breach modelling. Consequently the final culvert sizes should be determined at this stage, designed for both fluvial and tidal flood risk (see section on culvert design below), and included within the breach modelling, so the accurate impacts on tidal breach flood risk can be determined. 4.14 Our concerns regarding flood risk modelling could be addressed by the applicant undertaking the appropriate modelling using the new and updated modelling for the Thames. The modelling should demonstrate that the development does not increase offsite flood risk. The breach model should also include Tilbury East and West flood storage area embankments and ensure the impact of the new and replacement culverts are considered. Since the submission of the DCO, these matters have been discussed with the consultants acting for the Port of Tilbury on Tilbury 2, with a view to addressing the issues we have raised and working towards a memorandum of understanding regarding flood risk. Climate change allowances 4.15 The breach modelling has used the standard River Thames levels from the Environment Agency, using the usual climate change allowances in the NPPF and PPG. Our previous responses, to the applicant at the pre-application stage, have referenced the NPS on Ports which requires alternative climate change allowances to be considered for port developments. It needs to be ensured that the breach modelling climate change allowances adhere to the requirements of the NPS, or are precautionary higher, to ensure the correct flood risk impacts over the lifetime of the development are known. 4.16 The FRA should include a calculation of these required NPS climate change allowances and compare them to the new River Thames climate change levels. If the NPS climate change levels are higher than the standard River Thames climate change flood levels then they should be included in the breach modelling scenarios to determine the breach risk, or a worst-case comparison of the NPS climate change flood levels with site levels should be undertaken. This is particularly likely to be required for the H scenario required to be assessed under section 4.13.11 of the NPS on Ports, for critical features of the design of new ports infrastructure which may be seriously affected by more radical changes to the climate. We have taken this to mean elements of the design which must remain operational during the credible maximum scenario, to ensure that the facility can operate and the occupants and staff and the environment remain safe from the potential impacts (e.g. flooding). The FRA should detail whether they have any of these features and therefore whether the H scenario needs to be assessed. 5.0 - Fluvial Flood Risk Culvert Design 5.1 Section 6.2 of the FRA states that it is recommended that the proposed new culverts for the Chadwell Cross Sewer and East Tilbury Dock Sewer will be ‘suitably sized, so they can accommodate peak flows, including allowances for climate change in accordance with our latest guidance’. However Section 3.3.1 on climate change states that the FRA will not undertake any fluvial modelling of the existing surface water drainage network as there is no history of fluvial flooding in the area for development, and that reference has therefore been made to the Tilbury Integrated Flood Strategy. Therefore it is unclear how the culverts will impact on flood risk. 5.2 The applicant will need to provide cross sections of both the existing and proposed culverts to show that they are using the largest possible diameter of culverts that will fit the watercourse. There should be no reduction in the size of the culverts to ensure that the capacity to carry peak flow is maintained and where possible enhanced. Further the applicant will need to show where water will flow if capacity is exceeded or if the culvert becomes blocked. They need to clearly show that the proposed culverts will not increase flood risk to people and property both on and off the development site. 5.3 Since the submission of the DCO application we have discussed this issue with the applicants. These discussions will continue with a view to resolving this issue. If the applicant is unable to demonstrate that the proposed culverts would not increase the risk of flooding, they may need to undertake modelling so that the 1% (1 in 100 chance) annual probability flood flows (including 35% climate change allowances) are determined and the culverts are sized to contain the required flows as stated in the FRA. 6.0 - Flood Risk Management Flood Risk to development 6.1 Section 5.3 of the FRA provides details of the breach flood levels in mAOD in the location of each of the proposed buildings but does not provide site levels or flood depths. Appendix C provides depth maps but only in 0.5m bands. The FRA also does not state the finished floor levels for each building, instead section 6.1 of the FRA states that the finished floor levels should ideally be raised 300mm above these breach flood levels, and states that should the finished floor levels not be achievable due to other design constraints for the site then alternative flood management measures of flood resistant/resilient measures will be implemented as detailed in Section 8.1. 6.2 Section 8.1 states that a ‘Flood Emergency Plan should be developed for the whole site to establish a procedure to reduce the potential for future users of the site being exposed to the flood hazard as a result of a potential breach on the site’. It also states that it is possible that a breach could occur without suitable prior warning for all staff to safely evacuate from the site and therefore a suitable refuge area should be available in the upper levels of the ancillary buildings in the event that a full evacuation cannot take place. However the Flood Emergency Plan has not been provided, and nor have any details of the location or provision of the refuge. 6.3 The FRA does not provide the full flood risk picture of the impacts of a breach flood event by providing the detailed flood depths on the site and within the buildings, and the mitigation measures proposed for each building, so it is unclear whether the Planning Inspectorate will be able to determine whether the proposed mitigation measures will ensure the safety of the development. The FRA should also provide details of the proposed site levels in each of these locations, and the proposed flood depths on the site. 6.4 The FRA should specifically state the proposed finished floor level for each building, and so specify whether they will be raised above the flood levels or whether the alternative measures of flood resistant/resilient construction will be used, detailing what measures will be implemented within each building, and the resulting flood depths within each building. The FRA should not contain alternatives, but should detail exactly what is proposed for each building. The Planning Inspectorate will need to determine whether the specific proposed measures are acceptable to manage and mitigate residual breach flood risk to the development. 6.5 The FRA should provide details of where the refuge will be located, what it will contain, and its finished floor level. The Planning Inspectorate will need to determine whether the Flood Emergency Plan and refuge is sufficient to ensure the safety of the occupants in the event of a breach flood. The Flood Evacuation Plan should be provided as an appendix to the FRA to enable this decision to be made. East Dock Sewer 6.6 Whilst the outline drainage strategy is not within our direct remit to comment upon, Figure 7-1 shows the proposed road corridor drainage out falling into East Tilbury Dock Sewer. This channel does not have the adequate conveyance required to accommodate additional flow due to bed level irregularities. These irregularities are associated with the poor footing conditions of Thurrock Highways Ferry Road retaining wall (western extent of scheme). If the East Dock Sewer is not improved then it may not be able to adequately accommodate the proposed surface water flows from the road drainage corridor. 6.7 This retaining wall of the East Dock Sewer, where the road corridor meets the existing road infrastructure at the western extent of the site boundary, is a third-party asset that will need to be repaired/refurbished/replaced in order to permit the required highway works for the development, but also to allow us to safely exercise our permissive powers to restore an appropriate bed level to the watercourse and undertake intermittent maintenance activities to ensure a uniform bed level to aid conveyance. These works will need to be included within the permit applications for the works to the main rivers. 7.0 - Flood Defences 7.1 The application proposes a link bridge over existing flood defences. The design will need to allow for sufficient space for future maintenance and upgrades of the defences, ensuring they continue to provide sufficient protection to the site. In addition three crossings of main rivers on the site are proposed and as already stated there are plans to culvert and re-route rivers to enable the development of the infrastructure corridor. 7.2 Whilst some pre-application discussions have taken place with regards to the works proposed for the flood defences, we are yet to receive detailed plans. Following these discussions we understand that the design will need consider the feasibility of the port’s operations, but the applicant will need to demonstrate how protection will be maintained for the site and show how access will be maintained to allow us to carry out maintenance. The defences will need to be raised to a future height of 8MAOD. Until the detailed plans are received we are unable to comment on their suitability. Similarly the applicant will need to provide us with detailed designs for the watercourse crossings. We are willing to continue engaging with the applicant and comment on their plans in this area as their detailed designs are drawn up. 7.3 A requirement could be included in the DCO in relation to flood defences, this should require the submission and approval of detailed plans to confirm that work in relation to flood defences and watercourses are acceptable to us. The plans should be approved prior to the commencement of any works and should be undertaken following agreed construction plans. Alternatively this could be dealt by way of suitable protective provisions. 8.0 - Ecology 8.1 The size and scale of the development poses a number of challenges in ecological terms. The environmental statement covers the main ecological issues that we would expect to be addressed by the developer. However in some specific areas we have some remaining concerns that will need to be considered before we can be certain that the development will not cause a negative environmental impact. It must be ensured that any negative impacts of development are addressed satisfactorily with avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures 8.2 The Ecological Mitigation and Compensation Plan (EMCP) needs further exploration to show how mitigation is to be achieved. After considering Section 10.226: Impact on Priority (S41) Habitat, we believe there is a compensation short-fall leaving a residual net loss for certain habitat (e.g. open mosaic). We believe more compensation is required off site for certain habitats to address this issue. Section 2.3 of the landscape and ecological management plan shows there should be offsite compensation for the 2.5 ha of coastal and floodplain grazing marsh to be permanently lost. 8.3 A phasing plan is key for the development so that new habitats on and off site are created well in advance of the destruction of the existing ones. This will ensure there is no loss of biodiversity at the site. Phasing of new habitats will give translocated species a chance to establish. This is particularly important when it comes to the open mosaic habitats. A phasing plan, as referenced above, could be included in the Ecological Mitigation and Compensation Plan. 8.4 We note that no eel survey has been undertaken because the suitability of the watercourses are judged to be low. It is hard to be certain of the absence of eels without a survey of the relevant watercourses to avoid a negative impact on them during construction and operation in accordance with the Eel (England and Wales) Regulations 2009. We believe a survey of suitable watercourses for eels should be completed and if appropriate, mitigation and compensation measures for habitats affected should be produced. 8.5 We welcome the intention to retain water voles on the site and to include mammal shelves within the proposed culverts of the re-routed rivers. Cross sections of watercourses and plans are needed to ensure that the biodiversity function of drainage ditches is maximised. The developer should produce detailed designs for the concentric rings of open ditches needed to provide enhanced water vole habitat. The phasing of habitat creation for water voles needs very careful consideration otherwise it may fail due to inadequately established vegetation around the new ponds. A phasing plan should be produced detailing how these concerns may be addressed. 8.6 Invasive species should be monitored as the establishment of any plants such as floating pennywort will threaten the success of the wetland habitats. There should be long term monitoring of invasive plant species post construction of compensatory habitats. 8.7 We would request the following points form part of a requirement appended to the DCO to address our concerns in relation to ecology. • The developer should undertake a survey to confirm that the development will not impact upon eels. If eels are found to be present at the site, they should produce a plan which we will need to agree showing how eels and their habitat will be protected during the development of the site. • The applicant should clearly demonstrate how mitigation for any loss of habitat will be achieved both on and off site. This should include the phasing of new habitat creation to ensure there is no loss of habitat during development. • The applicant should provide cross sections of watercourses to demonstrate that the biodiversity function of ditches is maximised. • The applicant should produce a detailed plan showing how they will deal with invasive species at the site during development and following construction during the operational period. 9.0 - Water Framework Directive 9.1 The construction of the development and dredging works will need to demonstrate compliance with the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Priority and priority hazardous (WFD) substances are not set down in scoping or impact assessment matrices and appear to be missed off the initial scoping assessment. Some broad term reference to the treatment of these chemicals is included within the impact assessment sections (e.g.: PAH’s referred to as low solubility) with the inference being they will not leave the sediment and thus levels of transfer to water are largely assumed to be minimal. 9.2 In the event that there remains uncertainty over the risks to water quality whilst undertaking dispersive dredge techniques, we would recommend some additional water sampling for WFD pollutants, to provide confidence of no deterioration, and this could be developed in conjunction with our national Estuarine and Coastal Monitoring and Assessment Service (ECMAS), since the real risks of PAH’s transferring from sediment to water in significant amounts in this turbid environment are relatively poorly understood. 9.3 In-combination effects did not include the possibility of the construction of a new power station adjacent to the port. If the power station is built then there will be cooling water effluents in close proximity to the port’s maintenance dredging operations. The possible thermal uplifts should have been identified as potentially requiring consideration –because increased temperature will affect the solubility of contaminants, and may make dredging riskier for chemical compliance. 9.4 Whilst we accept that the capital dredge could not be affected by a thermal plume once built the Port of Tilbury will have to maintenance dredge quite large volumes of sediments every year. The power station could have little in the way of options to cease discharging whilst dredging is in progress. More protective alternative dredge methods such as water injection methods may be options in this scenario but there are cost implications which might be unpalatable for the Port of Tilbury. The Port would need to ensure operations remain WFD compliant when it undertakes maintenance dredging. 9.5 Further investigation into this operational phase risk should be undertaken in conjunction with the applicants for the power station, to define the level of risk to WFD compliance. If necessary work should be undertaken to seek suitable mitigation strategies that would be mutually acceptable to both operations. At this stage we are aware that thermal plume modelling has not yet been carried out for the power station application. However we believe that engagement between the developers of both the port and power station would be advantageous in resolving this issue. 9.6 A WFD assessment for the maintenance dredge will be a separate requirement, informed by an understanding of the chemical nature of the sediment to be dredged, and the baseline conditions that will be prevailing at the time of dredge (to include consideration of any thermal uplifts in the area caused by the power station discharge, should it be consented). The capital dredge works we accept as likely to be WFD compliant, though the exact dredge methodology will need to be stated and this may affect the levels of risk. It would be appropriate for the Port to provide an updated WFD assessment once dredge methodologies and timings are decided. We would want to review and agree capital and maintenance dredge methodologies. 9.7 The WFD assessment is satisfactory from a terrestrial habitat perspective. Natural channel design is to be specified, and designs of diverted ditches will need to be provided before the application is determined. Compensation is provided matching watercourse length and number of ponds, but ideally enhancements should be sought for a development of this scale with greater length of watercourse and number of ponds established. The design of watercourses and ponds should also be exemplary and provide better habitats than those destroyed to aid with offsetting. With regards to the proposed culverts, mitigation measures are proposed and these are acceptable. We require further detail on fish passage measures, the applicant should consider the use of flaps which don’t restrict fish and eel passage in the same way as other sluice designs. 10.0 - Environmental Permitting 10.1 Part of the port development area falls within the boundary of the Tilbury Power Station environmental permit. The permit and controls laid down in it remain in force until surrender by the operator, RWE Generation UK plc. The developer should be aware that there is a formal process to fully or partially surrender this permit. Supporting information will need to be provided as part of the surrender application. We recommended that the developer and permit holder discuss this to ensure permit surrender links in with the development plan and future delays are avoided. 11.0 Drainage Strategy 11.1 The applicant must ensure they are always discharging clean, uncontaminated surface water. Discharged water should not lead to a deterioration in the water quality of receiving water bodies and rivers. A fuelling facility is referred to in page 35 of the Drainage Strategy. Any fuel storage will need to be constructed and maintained in accordance with the Control of Pollution (Oil Storage) (England) Regulations 2001. 11.2 The Drainage Strategy also states that a new foul SPS will be constructed. We suggest the applicant discusses this proposal with RWE and their plans for waste water disposal from the new Tilbury Power station. The SPS could be sized to accommodate waste water flow from the new power station or provide ability to increase capacity at a later date. 11.3 The mitigation route map indicates that permeable pavements are being considered as part of a drainage strategy. The permeable pavements should be used as attenuation storage and treatment, and have their bases lined where there may be an unacceptable impact to water quality via leaching of contaminants. Permeable pavements are acceptable for some forms of drainage but where pollution incidents may occur, they may be inappropriate due to not being able to isolate any pollution. 11.4 We welcome the inclusion of green roofs into the development to assist with drainage but more detail is needed on their design and construction to show the impact these would have on the overall drainage at the site. 12.0 - Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPR) 12.1 A flood risk activity permit under the EPR would be required for all works within 8m of the main rivers and within 16m of the tidal flood defences. The EPR are a risk-based framework that enables us to focus regulatory effort towards activities with highest flood or environmental risk. Lower risk activities will be excluded or exempt and only higher risk activities will require a permit. The proposed works may fall under either one or more of the below: • ‘Exemption, • ‘Exclusion’, • ‘Standard Rules Permit’ • ‘Bespoke permit. The applicant should contact us as soon as possible to discuss permitting issues which can be addressed alongside the DCO application. This approach should reduce the risk of delays in the future delivery of the development. We note the applicant is seeking disapplication of the EPR in relation to the need for flood risk activity permits and we will consider whether we are content to agree to such disapplication and inform the applicant and the Examining Authority as soon as possible. We would only give such agreement conditionally on the DCO including protective provisions in lieu of the provisions in the EPR relating to flood risk activity permits. 13.0 - Protective provisions 13.1 The Applicant seeks to disapply various pieces of legislation (Article 3 of the draft Development Consent Order submitted with the application). We are currently considering our position in relation to the legislation which is relevant to the Environment Agency and the suggested draft protective provisions included in the draft DCO which accompanies the application. We will be responding to the Applicant on these issues in due course and will provide the Examining Authority with an update. 13.2 During the pre-application phase of the DCO we had regular contact with the applicants, including some meetings, telephone conferences and reviewing of documentation. We propose to continue this process beyond the submission of the DCO with a view to agreeing statements of common ground and resolving the issues we have highlighted in our relevant representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Essex County Council
"Essex County Council (ECC) wishes to register as an interested party. ECC supports Tilbury 2 in principle, subject to the satisfactory receipt of additional information, amendments, mitigation and clarification to address the outstanding objections and concerns below: Highways and Transportation • Transport Assessment. Overall methodology considered sound. ECC maintains an outstanding concern regarding M25 J30 and require further clarification. • Lower Thames Crossing. ECC expect Tilbury 2 & LTC to take account of respective proposals to ensure junction capacity. • Framework Travel Plan. Clarification, information and mitigation required concerning sustainable travel modes and provision of public transport to coincide with shift patterns. • Rail Freight. Seek reconsideration by Network Rail (and PoTLL) on the timing and priority of relevant enhancements in the 2017 Freight Network Study. Clarification required on the cumulative impacts on the rail network, passenger and freight capacity, connectivity and network resilience between Essex and London. • All transport impacts will need to be mitigated. Waste and Materials Maintain an objection to the approach to waste related matters, contrary to national and local planning policy, especially the NPP for Waste, Thurrock LP and Essex and Southend Waste Local Plan (2017) (Essex WLP). • Inappropriate use and application of the Essex WLP; Essex waste data and findings. • Inappropriate and unjustified use of Essex as a “proxy study area” in the absence of Thurrock waste data. • Lack of appropriate assessment of Thurrock and EA waste data. • Lack of consideration of all neighbouring Waste Planning Authorities, GLA and WLPs within London, which influence waste activities within Thurrock. Flood and Water Management Additional information and clarification required concerning: • Discharge rates for the northern area of the site and access road; • Flood risk for the whole site; • Water quality; • Treatment / culverting of existing watercourses. Economic Growth Clarification required on how the benefits and use of the local supply chain and economy would be realised. Landscape and Visual Impact Clarification, additional information and mitigation measures required, including wider landscape. The majority of proposed landscape mitigation fails to adequately address wider significant adverse visual impacts on the setting of Tilbury Fort and wider surrounds including East and West Tilbury. Ecology Note the aim for temporary net loss in biodiversity with potential neutral or net gains over time and welcome the off-site habitat compensation for invertebrates; shadow HRA for likely impacts on European Sites; Priority s41 Habitat & Species clarification and translocation of PFA and Lytag for compensatory brownfield habitat Clarification, additional information and amendments required concerning: • All details in the BS42020:2013 model condition D.4.1 included within the DCO Requirement for a CEMP • A long term Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) will be a DCO requirement; should be cross referenced with final lighting strategy. • Ecological details and embedded mitigation incorporated into the scheme design; advance habitat creation is essential. • Bat surveys and mitigation Historic Environment Object in principle, due to considerable harm caused to the setting of Tilbury Fort a Scheduled Monument of international significance. The effectiveness of proposed mitigation/enhancement appears limited, further clarity, detail and amendments required. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gravesham Borough Council
"Gravesham Borough Council (GBC) is located on the southern side of the River Thames opposite the site. Gravesham supports the principle of Tilbury2 not only because of the benefits it brings in terms of sustainable transport and employment, but also because the heritage of our town is best appreciated in the context of a working and evolving river. The Council is working with the Port of Tilbury on a number of thematic Statements of Common Ground, setting out the many areas where matters have been agreed and the limited areas where further work is required. The Council’s key areas of interest are the impact of the development relating to the following matters: Archaeology and Cultural Heritage impacts Key area of interest for GBC is the built heritage impacts. GBC is proud of its rich maritime history - see http://www.visitgravesend.co.uk/things-to-do/gravesend-riverside/ - and agrees, in general terms with the PoTLL, that the primary impact of the proposal is likely to be the intensification and spread of industrial development on the northern shore. This will not only impact directly on affected heritage assets but also change the context within which they are understood, appreciated and enjoyed during the day and at night. The ES says “The operation of the Proposals is likely to have a potential impact upon the settings of the Scheduled Monuments of . . . New Tavern Fort and Gravesend Blockhouse, and the non-designated but nationally important Shornemead Fort. This will principally be through the visual effects of buildings, structures, the CMAT processing facilities, aggregate stockpiles on site, 100m high silo and large vessels at Ro-Ro and CMAT berths, as well as a significant increase in lighting effects at night”. The submitted non-technical ES summary advises for “Operation: Adverse impact on setting of built heritage assets” that the “Approval of Thurrock Borough Council, in consultation with Historic England, in relation to surface details of key structures and final lighting strategy”. This doesn’t recognise the impact that lighting will have on views from GBC as highlighted above. As the Council does not have its own archaeological support, we will defer to Historic England’s expertise. Noise and vibration impacts We are concerned about the proposed 24hr operation of the CMAT. The final PEIR issued on 13 June 2017 included “5.44 The CMAT is envisaged to operate 312 days per year (six days per week), 7am - 7pm Monday – Friday and 7am – 12pm Saturdays”. In the submission ES, 24 hour working is proposed with the ES indicating that night time CMAT activities would be major and significant at locations in Gravesend including the Gravesham Local Plan 2014 mixed use Canal Basin Regeneration Area Key Site (Policy CS04). The PoTLL considers that this is based on worst scenario modelling. Justification for the proposed 24/7 workings of the CMAT is being discussed between PoTLL and GBC and it was agreed that the PoTLL will be providing GBC with a justification of why 24/7 operation is necessary. For the ES scoping, GBC’s concerns included “operation of the ships manoeuvring to and from the new port” and this is an area where agreement has not yet been reached. GBC considers that further work is also necessary around ensuring the provision of onshore electric plug-ins for moored ships to use rather than their engines because of the air and noise pollution impacts. Ecological impacts GBC recognises that understanding the ecological and biodiversity impacts of the project are extremely 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 current site boundary of the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA and the Ramsar site, the Council is keen to ensure that these international important sites are not adversely affected by the proposal. With the understanding of our limited expertise in this area, GBC defers to the expertise of Natural England, RSPB, MMO, KCC Ecology, Environment Agency etc Air quality impacts The PLA is developing an air quality strategy for the Thames that looks into shore-side power, emissions monitoring and a port-wide air quality inventory for the river. GBC is not convinced, at present, that Tilbury2 is fulfilling its potential as a strategically important infrastructure project. Cumulative impact with the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) GBC is anticipating that the PoTLL will agree a SoCG with Highways England to ensure that the traffic impacts on Gravesham, generated by the Port of Tilbury, by virtue of the LTC once built, are comprehensively modelled and mitigated for and don’t fall between these 2 NSIP projects. Additional comments The PoTLL is proposing a range of compensation, monitoring and mitigation which will be secured by DCO requirement with and without additional legal agreements. The PoTLL has offered to produce a document which more clearly explains how these measures are secured via the DCO. This assistance is appreciated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Highways England
"Highways England wishes to register as an interested party in respect of the application by Port of Tilbury for a Development Consent Order. Highways England is a strategic road authority appointed by the Secretary of State as the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network. In respect of the application our particular interest is in the A1089, A13 and A282 Trunk Roads and the M25 Motorway. Amongst other things our licence to operate as a strategic highway authority requires us to ensure the effective operation of the network; protect and improve the safety of the network and to conform to the principles of sustainable development. "Sustainable development" means encouraging economic growth while protecting the environment and improving safety and quality of life for current and future generations. The Secretary of State’s policy in respect of the strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development is set out in Department for Transport Circular 02/2013. Highways England has been actively engaged in discussion with the applicant’s transport consultants throughout 2017 with a view to ensuring that the proposed development will not have a severe and detrimental impact on the strategic road network. The scope of the Transport Assessment was discussed prior to the application but Highways England did not see the Transport Assessment or drafts of it until it was submitted as part of the application. We are in the process of reviewing the Transport Assessment, including for its compliance with WebTAG. The applicant proposes mitigation works to the roundabout on the A1089, to the north of the existing Tilbury Port, which is known as the ‘Asda’ roundabout. Highways England has asked the applicant to justify the absence of proposed mitigation works at other locations namely A1089/A126 (Marshfoot Road junction), A1089/A13 merge and M25 junction 30. There is an ongoing dialogue between the applicant and Highways England to resolve these issues. At this stage it is too early to say whether the effects of the proposed development on the strategic road network can be mitigated so that the residual impacts are not severe. Accordingly Highways England currently objects to the proposed development. Circular 02/2013 requires developer’s proposals to comply with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. This is potentially a time consuming process. Even in the case of the ‘Asda’ roundabout the applicant has not followed DMRB, for example no Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Assessment (HD42/17) has been carried out. HD 42/17 requires consultation with stakeholders and it is unclear whether these consultations have taken place. Similar consultation requirements would apply for any works at locations which are not currently acknowledged by the applicant as requiring mitigation. Thereafter design, consideration of any departures from standard and Road Safety Audits will be required before mitigation works can be agreed as acceptable. Highways England considers that in the region of six months would be needed to reach this position. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kent County Council
"Simone Wilding National Infrastructure Temple Quay House 2 The Square Bristol BS1 6PN BY EMAIL ONLY Environment, Planning and Enforcement Invicta House County Hall Maidstone ME14 1XX Phone: 03000 415673 Ask for: Francesca Potter Email: [email protected] 8 January 2018 Dear Simone, Re: Application by Port of Tilbury London Limited for an Order granting Development Consent for a proposed port terminal at the Former Tilbury Power Station (‘Tilbury2’) – Relevant Representation Submission Following the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance (21 November 2017) of an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for Tilbury2, Kent County Council (KCC) requests to be registered as an Interested Party at the Examination. This letter provides a summary of the main aspects of the proposal which KCC agrees and/or disagrees, together with an appropriate explanation, in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 8.3. In summary, an outline of the principal submissions that KCC intends to make in relation to the application will concern: - Highways and transportation as the Local Highway Authority for Kent; - Minerals and waste as the Minerals and Waste Planning Authority for Kent; - Resilience; and - Biodiversity. Highways and Transportation KCC supports modal shift from road to sea and rail. The application proposes 2 or 3 train movements per day. The application must ensure capacity of available train paths through London. KCC’s stance is in favour of rail freight as long as it does not adversely affect peak passenger rail services. Due to the significant HGV movements associated with this application, KCC would urge consideration of lorry parking provision, provided as part of the application. There is an existing shortfall of designated lorry parks in both Kent and Thurrock which leads to issues of road safety, damage to roads/verges and litter/human waste which can cause issues when close to residential areas. This application would create increased competition with similar ports in Kent such as the Port of Sheerness and Thamesport (Medway). However, although economically adverse, this application could result in reduced HGV movements in Kent if container/Ro-Ro ships are docked at Tilbury instead of Kent ports. Therefore, any increase in Ro-Ro traffic (trailer) from European ports such as Rotterdam/Zebrugge/Esbjerg may lead to a decrease in HGVs travelling through the Channel Ports, thus reducing the demands on the Kent network. Minerals and Waste The submission documents state the Construction Materials and Aggregates Terminal is likely to have a throughput of circa 1.9 million metric tonnes of bulk products per annum. Whilst the amount of mineral importation is not listed, it is likely to be significant proportion of the overall 1.9 million tonnes. The County Council has an aggregate import and export relationship with Essex, in that some of Kent’s landwon soft sands are exported to Essex. The potential for increased aggregate importation is likely to help make the East of England area more capable of meeting its needs. Overall, enhanced importation capacity into Essex is likely to reduce reliance on Kent’s own landwon supply. As landwon materials deplete across Kent and Essex, the importation of aggregates from marine sources will increasingly be used to substitute historical sources of supply – an approach that is supported in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Project Resilience The County Council notes that no risk assessment has been submitted that sets out mitigation for increased risk of maritime pollution incidents from vessels using the facility and re-fuelling / bunker operations, and no reference appears to have been made to this issue. Design parameters for both the facility and its operation should seek to minimise the risk of maritime pollution occurring and additionally, ensure sufficient contingency planning and containment (via drainage infrastructure and lagoons) and response in the event of any incident. To this end, landscape design parameters should seek to maximise bio-security to curtail potentially destructive exotic organisms, and environmental services including flood attenuation, air quality and phytoremediation [the use of planting for remediation] should also be capitalised upon where possible. Planting plans should therefore comprise 100% native and UK grown trees and shrubs, with the species selection informed by historic biodiversity. Reference should be made to local pollen core data to evidence research into suitable flora species with consideration of the inclusion of species that bring particular environmental benefits, in addition to contributing to landscape and biodiversity. Access and egress arrangements, muster points, security infrastructure, pollution control and containment of firefighting water should inform masterplanning to deliver a resilient port facility. For long-term resilience of biodiversity on the site, planning parameters should ensure that niches for wildlife, such as bat tubes, bricks and swift bricks, areintergrated into to new structures at the facility where possible. Further, the significant extent of new highway planned within the site should ensure wildlife-friendly surface water drainage gullies and other infrastructure. Biodiversity The County Council supports the range of ecological surveys that have been undertaken by the applicant to gain a thorough understanding of the ecology of the site. Full details should be provided to show how the site design has taken account of the biodiversity of the site. Any design needs to adhere to the ‘avoid, mitigate, compensate’ hierarchy as set out in the NPPF, where possible. It is also recommended that the application includes details of ecological enhancements, above and beyond the mitigation/compensation measures required, to ensure that net gains for biodiversity are achieved. Enhancements should therefore be an integral part of both the mitigation and overall design strategy for the project. If off-site compensatory habitat provision is required, it would be beneficial to work closely with other strategic developments nearby to utilise opportunities that can deliver a more ecologically coherent outcome than that which could be achieved working independently. Habitat loss across the site looks likely as a result of the application; and consideration will need to be given to whether the remaining habitats will continue to provide the same ecological function as the mitigation strategy evolves. If the reduced size, fragmentation/isolation or disturbance of the habitats means that the habitats are unlikely to function as part of a coherent ecological network, the scale of compensatory habitat required is likely to increase. The assessment of any likely significant impacts upon the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Zone (SPA) within the Habitat Regulations Assessment (as per the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017) is welcomed. All necessary mitigation measures outlined in the Habitats Regulation Assessment will need to be incorporated into the masterplan to demonstrate that they are achievable and implementable. ________________________________________ KCC looks forward to working with the applicant and Planning Inspectorate as the project progresses through the DCO process. We will welcome the opportunity to comment on matters of detail throughout the Examination. Should you require any additional information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely, Katie Stewart Director - Environment, Planning and Enforcement "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Hutchinson Planning and Transportation Limited on behalf of London Gateway Port Limited
"We believe there is a need to consider the capability of the regional/national rail network to provide the necessary train paths to accommodate intermodal and bulk (e.g. aggregate)/unitised freight of the proposed and existing committed development. Such committed development includes the London Gateway Port which, when fully developed is predicted to transport approximately 1.15 million containers (twenty foot equivalent) by rail per annum. A significant proportion of port throughput has destinations to the north, in particular the large logistics hubs located in the Midlands. The Applicant’s ‘Sustainable Distribution Plan’ (Appendix 13.C of the ES, Paragraph 5.2.4) suggests that the proportion of aggregate transported by rail from Tilbury 2 is anticipated to be significantly higher than the national average with a large catchment area of greater than 30 miles distant, including destinations in the South East and Midlands. Notwithstanding the above, the assessment carried out in support of the Tilbury 2 proposals does not appear to have considered available capacity on the regional/national rail network to accommodate the predicted rail movements. Instead, it appears to be entirely reliant upon representations made by Network Rail that “current headroom on the London to Southend railway line provides ample capacity for Tilbury 2 rail traffic” (Consultation Full Report – Submission Version Final Report October 2017, Page 199). Whilst not disputing Network Rail’s conclusions, we highlight that rail traffic from the Essex Thameside corridor is required to route through the wider network beyond Southend to London. In particular, rail travelling north to the Midlands and beyond will need to cross North London to access the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines. Such north London lines are subject to significant capacity constraints which are predicted to be exacerbated by the growing need for additional/competing passenger and freight services. With regard to freight, the London Mayor’s Draft Transport Strategy 2017 states “these slow moving long trains limit the full potential of the network for passenger services” (Page 163). To address such concerns the Mayor’s Strategy proposes “a new line linking the ports around Tilbury with the Great Eastern Main Line would allow traffic from the Essex Thameside route to access the Felixstowe to Nuneaton corridor without needing to pass through the city”. Such a new link is discussed within Section 8 of the Network Rail Freight Network Study (April 2017), which considers a 30 year horizon. However, it is only a feasibility study which is planned for the long term. Thus, such a link is not anticipated within a 30 year horizon resulting in a long term dependence on North London routes, which both the London Mayor and Network Rail confirm are constrained. It is acknowledged that the Tilbury 2 submission provides sensitivity testing considering highway impact in the instance that rail transport of aggregate is not achieved. However, the possibility also exists that Tilbury 2 predicted rail movements are achieved with the effect of constraining rail movements from other committed development along the Essex Thameside Corridor. The impact of that scenario needs to be carefully considered. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) has sent its response to the email address associated with this application. The MMO wish to be added to the distribution list for this application. Kind regards Heather Hamilton"
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC
"REPRESENTATION BY NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION PLC (“NGET”) TO THE TILBURY 2 PROJECT (“THE PROJECT”) NGET 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 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 existing apparatus and land interests located within this area, and NGET 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 will liaise with the Promoter in this regard. NGET assets which have been identified as being within or within close proximity to the proposed Order limits are: Tilbury 275kV Substation - Access into Substation is a concern during works. - YYJ 400kV Over Head Line (Tower YYJ136 in the Order boundary) - ZB 275kV Over Head Line Tilbury 400kV GIS Substation - 4VG 400kV Over Head Line - Tilbury 400kV Tunnel Cable (Partially in Order boundary where dredging is expected) 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. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural England
"Sent via email to [email protected] as discussed with the case officer Rob Ranger."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Winckworth Sherwood LLP on behalf of Port of London Authority
"The Port of London Authority (“PLA”) is the statutory body responsible for the conservancy of the River Thames (“the river”) and the administration of navigation on, and works and dredging in, under or over, the river. Its area of jurisdiction and regulatory powers are mainly in the Port of London Act 1968 (“the 1968 Act”), with further legislative provision made in Harbour Revision Orders made between 1975 and 2015. The area of the river affected by the proposed Order is within the PLA’s jurisdiction and the vast majority of the affected riverbed is owned by the PLA, with a very limited area belonging to the Crown. The Order limits extend into the river. They include the land required for the proposed Works Nos. 1 and 2 (permanent acquisition of land). Also included is an area of the river, surrounding that land, of which it is proposed temporary possession could be taken. The proposed extended port limits (which would be brought within the Port of Tilbury) include a lesser, but different, river area surrounding the works. The Applicant (“POTLL”) is the PLA’s statutory successor as harbour authority for the Port of Tilbury and by virtue of the Port of Tilbury Transfer Scheme 1991 Confirmation Order 1992 certain of the powers of the 1968 Act are exercisable by POTLL in relation to its harbour undertaking. The effect of the extension of the port limits would be that those powers would for the first time be exercisable within the river, where POTLL’s area of jurisdiction would overlap the PLA’s. In addition to dredging for construction purposes, the Order includes power (article 43) for POTTL to dredge the river and foreshore for the purpose of maintaining and operating the authorised development. Under the 1968 Act such dredging is currently under the sole control of the PLA. Compulsory acquisition of land and the proposed temporary possession powers (articles 32 and 33) are under discussion with POTLL). The effect of the proposed powers on private rights (and in particular privately owned navigational aids) and on navigation after construction has yet to be assessed fully by the PLA. The full implications of overlapping jurisdiction, the impact on the PLA of the proposed byelaws applying in the extended port (article 45 and Schedule 7), the proposed dredging powers and the adequacy of the proposed protection in paragraph 31 of Schedule 10 to the Order in relation to these matters are all under discussion with POTLL. The PLA is seeking to agree with POTLL detailed amendments to the draft Order in respect of these and other matters. It is hopeful that agreement will be reached. Environmental issues that have been identified include potential impacts on the river regime and existing river works, the impacts of proposed dredging, cumulative effects and mitigation. The environmental issues may require additional protections. The level of impact on existing river users is a concern. The proposals also raise financial concerns, in particular regarding the treatment of arisings from dredging the PLA’s river bed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Public Health England
"Public Health England would like to register an interest. The submitted reports do not identify any significant risks to public health. However, we note the modelled concentrations of nitrogen dioxide indicate the potential for impacts on air quality at a small proportion of receptors without exceeding air quality standards. In addition, the cumulative impact from other significant developments in the area such as the Lower Thames Crossing / London Resort does not appear to have been considered within the provided reports which could also impact on local air quality. We note that the operator has not considered; • the decommissioning phase of the project as highlighted in Section 2.73 of the Scoping Opinion for Tilbury2 (May 2017); and • potential health impacts of electric and magnetic fields associated with the electrical infrastructure of the proposed development. Should the proposer or Planning Inspector require any further clarification or advice on any matters relating to public health, we will of course be pleased to assist. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Purfleet Real Estate Limited
"This representation is made by Purfleet Real Estate Limited (“PRE”). Introduction Purfleet Real Estate (“PRE”) is the owner of Purfleet Thames Terminal (“PTT”), which is located upstream of the Development on the north side of the Thames, just to the west of the Dartford Crossing. PTT is operated by a sister company, C.RO Ports London Limited (“C.RO”). C.RO also operates Dartford International Ferry Terminal (“DIFT”), located on the south side of the Thames, just to the east of the Dartford Crossing. PRE and C.RO Ports London Limited are part of the CLdN Group, an integrated roll-on roll-off short sea shipping and ports operator. The Group’s segment is unaccompanied freight, including trailers, containers and new automotive products. Its core trade is on the North Sea between the U.K. and the continent, operating liner services between its UK terminals (PTT and Dartford on Thames, and at Killingholme on the River Humber) and its terminals at Rotterdam (Netherlands), Flushing (Netherlands) and Zeebrugge (Belgium). It also serves third party vessel operators at its UK terminals. Currently, most vessels call at PTT. It operates on a 24/7 basis to cater for vessel unloading and loading operations, and to receive and deliver freight to and from customers’ nominated hauliers. PTT currently receives 20 scheduled vessel calls per week, mostly Monday to Friday. During busy periods, additional calls will typically happen and schedules may become continuous during weekends. In 2016, PTT handled for 420,059 containers and trailer freight units and 252,478 new passenger cars and commercial vehicles. During this time, there were 1,113 vessel calls from Rotterdam and Zeebrugge. PRE is making this representation on behalf of the CLdN Group as it is the owner and developer of the Group’s major facility on the River Thames. The Application PRE has no objection in principle to the Development. As the brief description of the CLdN Group’s operations will indicate, PTT and DIFT’s priority in reviewing the effects of any new development in the area is to ensure the continued efficient and effective operation of its terminals, in relation to road access, continued navigation for its vessels on the River Thames, and no change in the function of its berths in respect of dredging or other maintenance requirements. Road access The results of the Transport Assessment are noted, and it is acknowledged that most impacts are likely to relate to roads in the vicinity of the Development and to the east of PTT and DIFT. However, a key consideration is the continued functioning of the M25 and the A13. PTT is a major road user and most HGV traffic arrives and leaves via local strategic freight routes, to connect to the A13 and the M25. Junction 30 of the M25 is therefore a major junction to be considered. PRE is concerned that any construction or operational traffic from the Development does not impede the function of these strategic routes without adequate mitigation being put in place. PRE would like to draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the fact that over the last two years, Thurrock Council has granted a number of planning permissions for development at PTT, all of which required the submission of transport assessments. This included modelling work on the impact of proposals on traffic flows in the area. In particular, on 4 May 2017 Thurrock Council granted three planning permissions relating to major development at the Terminal, as follows: - Ref. 16/01574/FUL for the construction of a new access and roundabout; - Ref. 16/01528/FUL for the construction of a new bridge over the railway; and - Ref. 16/01698/FUL for redevelopment of cargo handling areas and storage, including car decking, across the Terminal. Prior to this, Thurrock Council had granted a number of other permissions for level storage at land comprised within PTT, as follows: - Ref: 14/01387/FUL for level storage and associated works at former Esso lubricating oils site; - Ref: 15/00268 for level storage and associated infrastructure works at former Paper Mills site; and - Ref. 16/01698/FUL for level storage and associated infrastructure works at former Purfleet Farm. PRE intends to implement these consents and has been in the process of discharging conditions and taking the necessary steps to carry out the authorized development. It may be that Thurrock Council does not consider any cumulative impacts will arise between PRE’s proposals and the Development. Whilst PRE would not expect the assessment of cumulative impacts to address every development in the local area, it wishes to ensure that the examining authority is aware of other developments in the area whose transport impacts have been assessed and can consider them accordingly. River access PRE does not anticipate that the Development should interfere with the continued access to and use of the River Thames by vessels serving PTT and DIFT. It notes the protective provisions included in the draft Development Consent Order for the benefit of the Port of London Authority (“PLA”). PRE is not aware of the PLA’s views on navigation but would expect the examining authority to ensure that the PLA’s responsibilities and powers to ensure the continued effective use of the River by all operators are maintained. Other marine effects Existing and proposed river works licences for PTT are summarized on pages 10-218, 10-219, 11-147 and 11-148 of the environmental statement. It is noted that the purpose of this assessment is to investigate the cumulative effects of the Development with existing river works and dredging, rather than on the activities (and related port operations) authorised by those licences. PRE does not anticipate that dredging related to the Development would affect its operations; the Marine Management Organisation and the Port of London Authority should manage that through the negotiation of the respective licences and their inclusion in the Development Consent Order. To update the examining authority, PRE has recently received planning permission from Thurrock Council for the jetty replacement works referred to in the pages listed above (reference 16/01601/FUL) and is now progressing the respective marine/river works licences with the Marine Management Organisation and the PLA. Construction on the works is expected to commence during Q1 2018. Summary and conclusions As stated above, PRE and the wider CLdN Group are major users of the River Thames and surrounding infrastructure as part of their operations. Whilst there is no objection in principle to the Development it is vital to ensure that construction and operation of the Development will not impede the operations of PRE and its related Group companies and requests that the examining authority should ensure that these are fully scrutinised during the examination. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Royal Mail is responsible for providing efficient mail sorting and delivery nationally. As the Universal Service Provider under the Postal Services Act 2011, Royal Mail has a statutory duty to deliver mail to every residential and business address in the country, as well as collecting mail from all Post Offices and post boxes six days a week. 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 highly 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. Royal Mail’s Grays Delivery Office at Hogg Lane, Grays RM17 5QB is circa 5 miles from the Tilbury2 site. There are two other operational facilities within 12 miles: West Thurrock Distribution Hub - Trade Link Weston Avenue, Grays RM20 3FJ London East Depot - Oliver Road, Grays RM20 3ED Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all of the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of Tilbury2. Royal Mail therefore wishes to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations which may be adversely affected by the construction and operation of this proposed scheme. Royal Mail is concerned that during the construction and possibly operational phases of this proposed new port scheme its ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public, in accordance with its statutory obligations, may be adversely affected. Royal Mail asks that Port of Tilbury London Limited and the Examining Authority take note of the above concerns. As a minimum, Royal Mail requests that the applicant is required by the Examining Authority to: 1. Give careful consideration to potential cumulative construction traffic impacts and remediation measures to mitigate adverse impacts on the capacity of the highways network. 2. Acknowledge the requirement to ensure that major road users are not disrupted through full consultation at the appropriate times during the DCO and development processes. 3. Fully consult Royal Mail in advance on the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and name Royal Mail in the list of transport operators for consultation on usage of the network. Royal Mail reserves its position to object to the DCO application during the Examination if the above requests are not adequately addressed. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond
"Dear Sirs, Thank you for your 'Notice of Acceptance of an Application for A Development Consent Order for the Proposed New Port Area - 'Tilbury 2'', dated 29th November 2017. Trinity House wish to register their interest in the consultation process for this project. Trinity House's Interest relates to the following: 1. Aids to Navigation, 2. Protection of Trinity House's statutory obligations; and 3. Safety of Life at Sea, for all mariners. Please note that, where necessary, Trinity House reserve the right to make additional comments within areas that may arise in connection with Trinity House's interest. Yours faithfully, Nicholas Saunders for and on behalf of Trinity House "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thurrock Council
"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, although those proposed works located below the Mean Low Water Mark are beyond the jurisdiction of the Council as local planning authority. Background As noted within the submitted application, the Port of Tilbury has operated from its current site (to the west of the application site) since the late 19th century. The existing Port is a major presence and employer within the Borough. 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). Paragraph 3.18 of the Core Strategy identifies Tilbury as a ‘Regeneration Area’ and paragraph 3.34 states that Tilbury is a key location for employment in the Borough and will provide between 1,600 and 3,800 additional jobs in logistics, port and riverside industries. Paragraph 3.36 of the Core Strategy refers to enhancement of the landscape setting of Tilbury Fort and paragraph 3.37 refers to improvements to public access and informal recreation along the riverside at Tilbury. Table 3 of the Core Strategy lists a number of Strategic Spatial Objectives including increased prosperity and employment growth in Thurrock in the five employment hubs - including Tilbury (SS02) and port-related activity at Tilbury (SS019). The Council’s Core Strategy Spatial Policy for Sustainable Employment Growth (CSSP2) identifies Tilbury Port as an economic cluster and an area for future development. Port operations, logistics, transport and construction are identified as core sectors for Tilbury by this policy. Finally, Core Strategy Thematic Policy CSTP28 (River Thames) promotes the economic and commercial function of the river through, inter-alia, safeguarding additional adjacent land required for further port development. Although the selected Development Plan policies referred to above generally support the economic function of the Port of Tilbury, the Council places great importance on balancing any Port expansion against the full range of environmental considerations and in light of the development plan policy designations described below. 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; - Employment Broad Location – Urban Extension; - Green Chains; - Local Nature Reserves; and - Road Improvement Schemes. It is notable that 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 identified in the submitted documentation, in particular the Environmental Statement. These issues and impacts comprise (in no particular order): Socio-economics: the Core Strategy (paragraph 3.8) notes that the most deprived wards in Thurrock include Tilbury St. Chad’s, adjacent to the Order Limits. The non-statutory Tilbury Development Framework (October 2017) also notes the high incidence of adults in Tilbury with no educational qualifications. The impact of and opportunities / benefits arising from the proposals during construction and operation are therefore an issue for consideration. Health: this issue partly overlaps with the topics of air quality and noise referred to below and socio-economics referred to above. The inclusion of a Health chapter within the Environmental Statement provides an analysis of potential impacts on well-being and quality of life and is a relevant issue for consideration. Landscape Character and Visual Impact: the area within the Order Limits displays different landscape and visual features, however the common character of Tilbury and the site is a low-lying, flat landform adjacent to the River Thames. The proposed warehouse building, ancillary buildings / structures, container storage, silo, aggregates stockpiles, aggregates processing facilities, artificial lighting, road and rail infrastructure and associated vehicle movements and berthed vessels will all impact to a degree on landscape and visual receptors. Accordingly landscape and visual impact is a relevant issue for consideration. Terrestrial Ecology: the Council does not intend to comment on the issue of Marine Ecology as this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the local planning authority. Although parcels of land within the Order Limits will be of limited value for ecological interests, parts of the site are designated as Local Nature reserves by the Development Plan or provide habitat of some potential value for these interests. The potential impacts on terrestrial ecology during construction and operation, as well as proposals to mitigate impact are relevant considerations. Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: the submitted Environmental Statement considers both terrestrial and marine archaeology. As the jurisdiction of the Council as local planning authority terminates at the low water mark it is unlikely that the Council will comment on marine issues under this heading. The Environmental Statement correctly identifies Tilbury Fort as an important heritage asset located south of the proposed road and rail infrastructure corridor and west of the proposed extended berth, trailer / container storage, warehouse building and aggregates processing / storage facilities. The setting of the Fort is currently influenced by Port-related development to its west. The Council considers that any further impact on the setting of the heritage asset from the proposals is an important relevant consideration. The Council also considers that the extent to which the proposals can contribute to the policy objective of enhancing public access to the Fort and riverside is a relevant consideration. Land-Side Transport: the potential impact of additional vehicle movements on the local road network during the construction and operation of the development, and in particular the operation of the A1089 / Dock Road / Thurrock Park Way roundabout junction (the Asda roundabout) is an important relevant consideration. The Council also considers that the relationship between the proposals and the local walking and cycle network, including public rights of way are relevant considerations. Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions: parts of the area within the Order Limits were formerly used in connection with the coal-fired Tilbury Power Station. Accordingly there is the potential for ground contamination and this issue, along with proposals for associated remediation and impacts on hydrogeology, are relevant considerations. Water Resources and Flood Risk: the Tilbury area, including land within the Order Limits is generally flat, low-lying former marshland located on the northern bank of the River Thames. The issue of flood risk is therefore a relevant consideration. Noise and Vibration: sensitive receptors, particularly residential occupiers are located close to the proposed infrastructure corridor, storage areas and the Construction Materials and Aggregates Terminal. The impacts of noise and vibration from construction activities and during the operational phase of the development are relevant considerations. Air Quality: similar to the topic of noise and vibration, sensitive receptors, including residential occupiers are located close to both the access infrastructure corridor and the operational areas of Tilbury2. The impacts on air quality from the construction and operational phases of development, including emissions from vehicles are relevant considerations. The following comments summarise the current position from the main Thurrock Council service areas: Thurrock Council Environmental Health The submitted Construction Environment Management Plan (ref. 6.9) has been reviewed and it is considered that the implementation of the measures and procedures enclosed in this document are sufficient to provide suitable mitigation during the construction period. The submitted Operational Management Plan (ref. 6.10) has been reviewed. Areas of the report, with regards to operational noise, are highlighted. The applicant may be aware that the Port has been subject to noise complaints from ship generators operating overnight. Section 7.4 refers to air quality and dust control measures: - Lower emission engines as they are developed; - Improved dust control systems for handling of bulk cargoes; - Ability to provide shore power to vessels as technology improves so vessel engines can be turned down in port, reducing emissions; and - Adoption of electric vehicles as technology improves and makes this equipment viable for operational uses. The supply of shore power also would have a positive effect on noise and allow greater control of potential noise from ships. It is suggested that providing shore power should be looked on as a priority in any improvement programme. Generally the document lays out a basis for future operations and actions required when they come to light and will rely on professional competence of the persons in control for those areas they are responsible. The ongoing improvements outlined and subject to technical availability so are to an extent aspirational. Nevertheless it is considered that the document provided a basis for the future operation of the Port and industrial units. With regard to air quality, the submitted air quality assessment and appendices have been reviewed and it is agreed that the proposed development will not have a significant impact on relevant receptors in terms of the modelled outputs for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM10 & PM2.5). The assessment considered areas of most relevant public exposure in relation to the impacts generated from the proposed development, and all modelled receptors in this assessment were appropriate. All the modelled receptors fall either below or well below the relevant air quality objectives for NO2, PM10, and PM2.5. There was one receptor (R10) along Dock Road Tilbury, nearest St Andrews Road which had a “moderate adverse” impact. The “Do Something (DS) 2020 modelled scenario showed a concentration of 30.6 Microgram/m3, with a change of 4.4 microgram/m3 from the “Do Minimum”(DM) 2020 scenario. This is not a concern as it is well below the air quality objective 40 microgram/m3 for NO2. There were also four “slight adverse” impacts at receptors (R9, R13, R14 and R19), however all of these were below the air quality objective for NO2 and hence are not a concern. The remaining receptors were all classed as “negligible” and these were all below the air quality objective for NO2, and are not an issue. In addition the modelled PM10 and PM2.5 outputs were all classed as a “negligible” impact. All of these receptors were below the air quality objective 40 microgram/m3 for PM10. However the report did not state daily mean exceedences for PM 10. Additional information was requested from the consultants on daily mean PM 10 modelling results. After receiving this information it is confirmed that this will not lead to any further exceedences at the modelled receptors either, and is not an issue. The Environmental Health Officer is satisfied that the model used in the assessment was appropriate, and it was also used in accordance with the criteria laid out in the Defra TG(16) Technical Guidance. The assessment represented a worst case scenario, and the model verification process was robust, and limited any uncertainties associated with the model. The Environmental Health Officer is therefore satisfied that the proposed development in terms of the “Operational Phase” will not have any foreseeable or lasting impact in terms of air quality on nearby residential receptors most at risk from this development. Noise and Vibration - Section 17.0 in the Environmental Statement (ES) contains the assessment of Noise and Vibration. The assessment uses a standard reporting approach and the methodology employed agreed in advance with this section. There is overall agreement with the assessment, and the EHO is satisfied that it has covered all the relevant noise and vibration impacts both in the construction and operation of the proposed Tilbury2 development. The EIA Significance criteria developed is acceptable, and is summarised in Table 17.15 for both construction and operational phases, depending on the source. The Policy Significance Criteria with respect to effect thresholds, LOAEL and SOAEL, are acceptable and these are summarised in Table 17.16 for both construction and operational phases. The development “Scheme Design and Embedded Mitigation” detailed in paragraph 17.134 (page 17-36) will minimise scheme impacts. It is proposed to install the noise barriers within the transport corridor before the construction of the road and rail links to further mitigate construction noise. A noise reassessment will be made on the basis of the finalised operational design and procedures for the RORO and CMAT (as required by the DCO) and, where a significant effect is predicted for a receptor, an offer of sound insulation will be made. There will be further potential to mitigate impacts during both the construction and operational phase as detailed in paragraphs 17.223 to 17.226, including temporary noise screening of static plant during construction. The Operational Residual Impacts paragraph 17.229 refers to a Table 17.14, but this appears to be the wrong table. This should be table 17.46 – “Summary of Airborne Noise Significance” on page 17-53. The daytime operational port noise is indicated to have a significant noise impact at receptors near NSR2 in Sandhurst Road plus two others in Gravesham. For those receptors an offer of sound insulation to the dwellings is proposed to minimise the residual effect to “minor”. Additional “errata” documents were submitted to PINS on the 22 December 2017. I have examined those documents that could have a bearing on comments from this section, and I do not believe any alterations to our comments will be required. In document “TR030003-000467-PoTLL-T2-EX-11 Errata ES Chapter 5 Track Changes” I have noted the addition of “Extent and method of piling” detailing terrestrial and marine piling in paragraphs 5.115 to 5.118. Thurrock Council Flood Risk Key comments will be in relation to discharge rates for the northern area of the site and the access road. We will also wish to comment on flood risk for the whole site. In addition we are likely to submit comments in relation to water quality and also the treatment / culverting of existing watercourses. We have previously highlighted these issues and some previous concerns are still outstanding. However, we are expecting continuing dialogue with the applicant. Thurrock Council Public Health Noise – there are concerns on this issue 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 and early deaths from circulatory disease, stroke and CHD all of which can be impacted by noise. Further detail on baseline existing background noise is also requested. Mitigation measures include noise insulation to homes yet it is not defined who would become eligible / receive an assessment and the geographical boundaries of this – more information is required on this and how this will be funded. Active travel / cycling & walking – further discussion and clarification is required on how it is intended to ensure active and sustainable travel is a priority for employees and visitors to the site. Further discussion and information is required on the mitigation measures which have been assessed to have a positive impact on local resident walking and cycling in the local area including access to the riverfront. This is to ensure all options are fully considered and are appropriately linked into local initiatives, and funding contributions are adequately requested. Local Employment –the skills and employment strategy should match the needs of the local population. Air Quality – respiratory disease deaths, hospital admissions for COPD and premature mortality from cancer are experienced more often than average in Tilbury and we would request further discussion on the mitigation measures – in particular the use of cleaner, greener vehicles. Supply of shore power should be given priority. Thurrock Council Waste Thurrock Council raises the following concerns with regard to the waste matters that are considered in Chapter 19 of the Environment Statement (ES) and supporting documents: - the failure to address the baseline waste arisings and capacity within Thurrock as the Waste Planning Authority (and the host authority) and the inappropriate use instead of the Essex & Southend Waste Local Plan data as a proxy (Thurrock waste data is not included with the Essex & Southend plan); - incorrect assumptions are made in the ES methodology regarding Thurrock C,D&E waste arisings and flows derived from the EA data in order to justify that Essex data should be used as a proxy for the baselines assessment of waste impact; - the ES methodology fails to adequately acknowledge or assess the potential impacts during the operation phase of waste arisings from the asphalt and concrete batching and block-making process identified as proposed uses within the development. Thurrock Council Highways Thurrock Council disagrees with some of the assumptions and opinions within the submitted Transport Assessment. In particular, there are outstanding queries regarding impact on the Asda roundabout junction and associated mitigation proposals. Thurrock Council Historic Environment Advisor Summary - The Historic Environment Team would be unable to support his application. - The proposed mitigation/enhancement measures lack clarity and detail with the overall effectiveness of the proposed mitigation/enhancement appearing limited. - At present the proposed will cause considerable harm to the setting of a Scheduled Monument of international significance. - The initial Statement of Common Ground was not agreed with further clarity and details required as well as some amendments. Mitigation - Archaeology: in general the scheme is largely acceptable with respect to below ground archaeology, though there is a general lack, notably at the northern extent of the site. - Berths: there is very limited potential to reduce the level of harm caused by extending the berth up-stream. This element of the proposed will not be supported. - Silo: the use of a single silo (rather than two shorter) in light grey will potentially reduce the impact. Previous suggestions to locate it away from the shoreline have not been implemented. - Container Storage: given the amount and height, the proposal will have a significant impact with the effectiveness of mitigation limited. The height, extent and proximity of the storage remain a cause for concern. - Lighting: the use of low level lighting will reduce the visual impact, however, the impact remains significant. - Warehouse: the use of light grey cladding will reduce the visual impact, however, the overall size of the proposal remains a concern. - Aggregates Storage: this area of the site is relatively undeveloped, the proposal will cause harm with potential effectiveness of mitigation limited. - New Road: there is a general lack of detail to accurately assess the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. Enhancements - Two Forts Way: the increased length of the berth will have a negative impact upon the Two Forts Way with outward views being cut off. There remains great scope to enhance this route by bringing it within the flood wall and raising it up to gain outward views – viewing platforms would have the same effect. - Downgrading of Fort Road: the effectiveness of this measure relies upon detailing of traffic calming and limiting the size of vehicles utilising the route. This need further more detailed consideration. - Car Parking: the new car park at Worlds End Inn will improve the current facilities, however, details are scant. - Connectivity: whilst the proposed will retain connectivity with housing to the north, the quality of experience along this route is a cause for concern. A poorly considered scheme will not be an enhancement and may also lead to anti-social behave and increase in flytipping etc. - Interpretation: the proposed installation of way-finding / interpretation has not been considered with sufficient care and attention, the quality of this enhancement may be negligible. Thurrock Council Landscape and Ecology Advisor The surveys that have been undertaken are considered appropriate and deal with all the plants, species and animals likely to be affected in an appropriate level of detail. The ecological surveys conclude that the site currently supports a range of important plants, animals and habitats. Sites such as the Lytag and Tilbury Centre LoWSs support biodiversity resources measurable up to National levels of importance. There are a number of rare and important plants, lichens and invertebrates found on the site. A large proportion of the most significant habitats will be lost and there is little scope for mitigation on-site. Despite the biodiversity value of the site there is as yet no information about the nature of the proposed compensation scheme. Despite references in the ES to a scheme being developed with NE, Essex Field Club and Buglife they have had little involvement. The conclusions of the HRA report, that the development will not have any significant likely impacts on features of qualifying interest, is accepted. While the argument presented by PoTLL regarding cumulative assessment is noted there is still a major concern that the number of NSIP projects in this area will have significant adverse ecological effects that will be hard to mitigate. The piecemeal approach restricts the ability to achieve a mitigation/compensation package at the scale necessary for the scale of development in this area. The LVIA has been carried out using appropriate methodology. There is still concern that there should have been an additional viewpoint from the PRoW south of West Tilbury. There are major concerns over the effects of the scheme on the setting of Tilbury Fort. A key concern is the impact of the extended jetty which will bring the large ships much closer to the SAM. Although the LVIA states that the ships are ‘temporary’ as it is expected that they will be there for 4 hour twice a day it is likely that they will have a significant effect on visitors’ experiences. The overall development will be closer to the Fort than the existing power station buildings. The new infrastructure corridor will also have adverse effects introducing more movement and lighting closer to the Fort. The junction with Fort Road will also likely be more visually intrusive. The overall landscape mitigation package is considered to be very limited and will not achieve any significant benefits. A more robust landscape mitigation scheme could also provide some additional ecological mitigation features. It is considered that there should be more use of offsite planting etc. to achieve wider landscape mitigation measures. Finally, Thurrock Council confirms that it is maintaining a dialogue with the Port of Tilbury and is working to progress a Statement of Common Ground. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy McDowall
"Main Issues with application, their impact, and possible solutions 1. Traffic Concerns Increased sea, road, and rail traffic increasing pollutants. To combat this, open drainage ditches must be confirmed as a MUST. Not ‘where possible’ as originally outlined in the developers application. This solution will also be good for the ecology as well – so multifunctional. 2. Environmental Concerns with Community Health and Wellbeing in mind Would benefit all parties to have an independent conversationalist, environmentalist or ecologist consulted. So they can make unbiased recommendations/feedback directly to the Planning Directorate on how best to combat the inevitable effect on the surrounding countryside and animal inhabitants. Professional independent consultation would also help relieve anxiety from interested parties that any of the projects damaging aspects will be addressed humanly, such as the safe relocation of existing water vole colonies etc. Planting lots of large areas/lines of greenery such as trees/large shrubs will clean air of pollutants; and act as a noise barrier as we make the area more pleasant to look at (views from South Thames included). Trees/greenery also scientifically proven to be a healthy addition to local community wellbeing as openly championed by leading gardening experts such as Alan Titchmarsh and Monty Don. Fences as proposed in the application have no such benefits. 3. Scenic Impact Due to Gravesend conservation status, the outlook from Gravesend looking towards Tilbury port on the opposite side of the Thames should be protected. A positive solution is to plant a line of large trees on both the Tilbury and Gravesend side of the Thames. This stops residents of Gravesend/surrounding areas being negatively affected by this newly built industrial view, which was not part of the original infrastructure invested in when property in this area was purchased. A decent volume of trees would need to be planted to minimise the impact. This could be monitored by a series of photomontages. 4. Noise Pollutants Building fences on site as a solution to this is clinical and not multifunctional. Trees are softer, better for the environment on a multitude of levels, and environmentally healthier for the land, planet and surrounding ecology i.e. mammals, reptiles, insects and nesting birds. Trees are scenically better. They naturally counteract noise. And align with conservation values by providing rest breaks/homes to small animals; reduce CO2 emissions and protect air quality so I ask these are considered as an organic, healthier alternative to artificial fences/low noise surfacing. 5. Container Storage at the port The plan is for these to be stored up to six high. So again there is an unsightly landscape impact. This can be counteracted by a line of high trees to conceal this extremely industrial view, especially from the Gravesend perspective where parts are a conservation area. Summary I do acknowledge certain benefits the project will bring to the community and the area. However, I request that all of the above points are considered as part of a compromise to minimise the impact on the environment and its surroundings. "