The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.


Received 08 January 2018
From 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.

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.