Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Offices, New Road, Grays, RM17 6SL
Contact: Lucy Tricker, Senior Democratic Services Officer
Email: direct.democracy@thurrock.gov.uk
Media
Items
No. |
Item |
14. |
Minutes PDF 88 KB
To approve as a correct record the minutes of
the Lower Thames Crossing Task Force meeting held on 14 November
2022.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The minutes of the meeting held on 14 November
2022 were approved as a true and correct record.
|
15. |
Items of Urgent Business
To receive additional items that the Chair is
of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency, in
accordance with Section 100B (4) (b) of the Local Government Act
1972.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
There were no items of urgent business.
|
16. |
Declaration of Interests
Additional documents:
Minutes:
There were no interests declared.
|
17. |
Thames Crossing Action Group Presentation PDF 3 MB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Thames Crossing Action Group (TCAG)
Representative introduced her presentation which can be found at
the following weblink:
https://democracy.thurrock.gov.uk/documents/s37884/Thames%20Crossing%20Action%20Group%20Presentation.pdf
.
The TCAG Representative explained that the group had been founded
by residents to represent those opposed to the scheme, including
residents in Kent and across the country. She explained that in
2017 TCAG had been refused a question at Full Council, and there
had been much media and press attention surrounding this. She
stated that the LTC Task Force had then been set up to improve
communications between officers, Members, and residents. She
explained why TCAG were fighting the scheme, such as problems on
the Dartford Crossing that would not be improved by a new crossing,
problems during construction phase, and increased pollution. She
explained that issues with the design of the LTC, such as a single
lane on the A2 slip road and the ‘Stanford detour’, as
well as a lack of traffic migration data during design phase, could
also increase problems for users of the road and residents. She
added that a new crossing could also increase cross-river traffic
by 50%, and would have a negative impact on nearby homes, farms,
greenbelt land and the solar farm.
The TCAG Representative moved on and stated that in 2016 the cost
of the scheme had been approximately £4bn, but this had now
risen to £10bn and meant that the Benefit Cost Ratio had
fallen from 3.1 to 1.22. She explained that the recently announced
two-year delay would continue to increase costs and therefore
reduce the Benefit Cost Ratio. She added that additional mitigation
projects originally proposed by National Highways such as the
Tilbury Link Road, Blue Bell Hill, and A2 dualling had also been
dropped. The TCAG Representative explained that the Accounting
Officer Assessment had been published in January 2023, but this
document was using cost data from August 2020, which was now
outdated. She added that this document contained references to an
independent assessment review which had been carried out, and TCAG
had entered a Freedom of Information Request to see this document.
She stated that the request had been refused by Cabinet. She stated
that TCAG had therefore instructed solicitors and were currently
waiting on a response.
The TCAG Representative moved on and felt that if the LTC did go
ahead, carbon output would increase both during the construction
and operation phase. She explained that a legal challenge had
recently been put to the government’s Net Zero policy, and
the government had a deadline of 31 March 2023 to respond to this
challenge. She added that other legal challenges were also ongoing.
She felt that, if the project went ahead, more green mitigation
needed to be included in the Development Consent Order (DCO), as
well as limits on PM2.5. The TCAG Representative explained that the
World Health Organisation had recently set guideline limits on the
levels of PM2.5 that could be released, but these had not been
accepted by the government. She added that electric vehicles could
still ...
view the full minutes text for item 17.
|
18. |
Verbal Update: Council's Position - Examination
Additional documents:
Minutes:
The Director of Place updated the LTC Task
Force and stated that he had started at Thurrock Council in July
2022, and had become Director of Place in October 2022, and
therefore the LTC response fell under his remit. He stated that he
begun his work by seeking clarity on the LTC, the cost to the
council, and how the government intervention in September 2022, and
subsequent S114 notice in December 2022, would affect the project.
He explained that at no point had funding been withdrawn, but the
Council had to understand the full cost of the project and confirm
there was sufficient money in the budget under the S114 notice to
progress a compliant response. He stated that some of the design
team had paused some of their work in the meantime.
The Director of Place explained that the Planning Performance
Agreement (PPA) technically stopped at DCO submission, so no formal
funding structure had been in place and the current Council funding
was not sufficient. He explained that therefore the team had sought
a better deal from National Highways and had got this in writing,
so work on the response was now progressing. He explained that as
Thurrock Council was a host authority, it was automatically
registered as an interested party, but the Council had confirmed
with the Planning Inspectorate that they would be making
representation at the examination phase. He stated that the team
had asked the Planning Inspectorate to consider extending the
pre-examination phase by three months to ensure all information is
correctly considered, and the Council were currently waiting on a
response to this request. The Director of Place explained that
there had also been a change to project management staffing, as the
planning and transport teams within the Council were now more
engaged with the process, although consultancy experts remained
involved. He thanked the consultants for their hard work throughout
the process.
Councillor Ononaji questioned how much the project had cost the
Council to date. The Director of Place explained that it was hard
to find an exact figure due to the nature of the project, but
estimated that consultancy cost and officer time had cost
approximately £1.4-1.5m, although 40% of this had been
covered by the PPA. He stated that more was now covered by the PPA,
and this meant that cost would approximately be between
£400,000 and £500,000. The TCAG Representative
questioned if legal representation was covered by the PPA, and if
the LTC administration team were still working and reviewing the
DCO documents. The Director of Place explained that legal
representation costs had been included in the Council’s
budget, but were not covered by the PPA from National Highways. He
added that administration had previously been supplied through an
external team, with no oversight from council officers, but now
additional Council administration officers would be used to support
the external team, and would be tasked with processes such as
checking invoices. He added that consultants engaged through
Stantec still remained working with ...
view the full minutes text for item 18.
|
19. |
Work Programme PDF 70 KB
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Members did not have any items to add to the
Work Programme.
The Chair thanked Members, officers, and co-opted members for their
hard work on the Task Force throughout the 2022/23 municipal
year.
|