The Principal Planner – Major Applications presented the report.  Members were advised that this was not a ‘normal’ application for determination by the Planning Committee.  The proposals submitted by the Port of Tilbury London Ltd. were defined as a Nationally Strategic Infrastructure Project (NSIP) and the accompanying application for a Development Consent Order would therefore be considered by a panel of inspectors reporting to the Secretary of State, who would take the final decision.  Although the Local Authority would not determine the application, as the host borough they were encouraged to participate in the process and therefore the Planning Committee was asked to endorse the Local Impact Report and Written Representation.  The NSIP process was governed by strict timeframes and therefore it was crucial that the Committee reached a decision and did not defer, as the documents and comments would not be taken into account if they were not submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by midnight Tuesday 20 March 2018.

The Vice-Chair expressed the view that the Port of Tilbury had always been deemed to be a good neighbour, however it was suggested that some of its tenants raised noise and air pollution issues.  He queried what could be done to ensure that future tenants would not cause environmental impacts related to noise and air quality.  The visual appearance of the proposed container storage area was also queried.  Any approval of a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State would not be unconditional; permission would be subject to ‘requirements’.  Draft requirements had been submitted for consideration and suggestions had been made within the Local Impact Report.  Requirements were similar to planning conditions for general applications; details of external appearance of buildings would have to be submitted and agreed by Thurrock as the local Planning Authority, there would be height restrictions, flood risk assessment, noise and air quality mitigation and ongoing noise monitoring and other such matters as would usually be expected.  The requirements would be legally binding.  The Environmental Statement assumed the worst case scenario and formulated mitigation proposals accordingly.  The reality was that during operation containers would be moving and heights would periodically go up and down.  Within the Local Impact Report the worst case scenario also assumed that Tilbury Power Station would not be there, though it was considered likely that there would be a replacement power station in the future and therefore the visual backdrop would change again.  Landscape had been assessed to be a negative impact however not significantly and taking the whole proposal on balance the clear benefits of the scheme outweighed this impact.

Councillor Rice sought assurance that the Fort Road and Dock Road access routes would be maintained, as there was a routing system currently in place installed by Thurrock Council.  The Principal Highways Engineer informed the Committee that there was a proposal to provide an extension to the current bridge over the Fort Road with the intention of maintaining a strong link to the existing network and relocating as much traffic to the new port road as possible.  He assured Members that the Council did not want access prejudiced in anyway and were therefore considering matters closely. 

Councillor Rice agreed that was reassuring to hear, he continued to state that while he fully supported proposals environmental measures regarding the A1089 to protect residents were needed.  He wanted the same package as had been installed via DP World development with acoustic barriers and felt this was an opportunity to enhance environmental measures.  It was confirmed that there would be acoustic barriers along the new port access road however the A1089 further north was a Highways England asset.  The issue of acoustic barriers was also a question for environmental health officers rather than the highways department and the requirements at DP World had been made by Public Protection and the assessment would also fall to them in this instance.

Members were advised that the Environmental Health Officer had been satisfied and made no comment requesting noise barriers north of the Asda roundabout on the A1089.  Councillor Rice continued that he would not be satisfied until environmental measures were installed to protect residents.  Members heard that the issue centred around evidencing what increase on that stretch of road could be attributed to this proposal alone, in the context of everything else on the A1089. However Highways England were also part of the process and could therefore have their own view of mitigation requirements along their asset.

Councillor Ojetola echoed comments that in principle he agreed with proposals regarding employment provision and felt it was commendable and a credit to Thurrock that the Port was expanding following the development of a second port, DP World, in the borough which could have caused competition.  He raised a concern regarding the proposed deletion of a public footpath and asked what was proposed instead.  The footpath in question, 144, ran between the rear of residential properties and commercial sites and crossed the existing railway line.  It was proposed to stop up a short section for safety reasons due to the proposed infrastructure corridor.  The Local Impact Report outlined mitigation in terms of planning obligations including an Active Travel Study, with measures to improve walking, cycle routes and way-finding in a relatively large surrounding area; the S106 also sought surface improvements and widening of some existing footpaths.  Councillor Ojetola explained that he had hoped for something so that users directly affected by the closure would not have to travel further, such as a bridge over the railway, and was surprised that the issue had not been picked up more.  He appreciated the improvements elsewhere but asked what was proposed for those affected users.  The proposal was for the footpath to be stopped at the railway crossing, due to safety issues.  The suggestion of an over-path had been discussed as part of the pre-application however it would raise the issue of overlooking for the residential properties because of the height of structure required.  In lieu of the footpath the applicant proposed to make further enhancements to make alternative routes more attractive including cycle links.  There would be enhancements and widening works proposed for the Two Forts Way, including links over the sea wall.  These proposed enhancements were deemed as sufficient mitigation for the loss of footpath 144.

Councillor Ojetola continued to query the wording of paragraph 6.21 of the Local Impact Report, on page 92 of the agenda, which stated that works shown would not appear to raise Green Belt policy implications. He sought clarification as to whether it did or did not raise these implications.  The Principal Planner – Major Applications explained that much of the precise design detail had not yet been submitted and therefore officers had to test the parameters of acceptability.  However, on the basis of the submitted general arrangement plans and from the available evidence there were no significant conflicts with the Green Belt.  There was also the need to balance the status of the NSIP with the small pocket of Green Belt within the site, with the added benefits of landscaping and ecological mitigation which were deemed to outweigh the harm.

Councillor Ojetola questioned who would determine the issue.  Three Planning Inspectors were appointed to consider the application, in considerable detail.  They would assess the application and present a recommendation to the Secretary of State, taking into account all material considerations including Green Belt.  NSIPs did not fall under normal planning policy and were instead subject to “National Policy Statements”, though these often replicated what would be considered within ‘standard’ planning applications.  The recommendation would be guided by the Local Impact Report and Written Representation from Thurrock Council and submission from any other interested parties.  Thurrock officers suggested that the impact upon the Green Belt was outweighed but the final decision was for the Secretary of State.

Councillor Snell recalled from experience that Roll On / Roll Off ports generally saw bursts of traffic.  He asked what figure had been used for calculations regarding the impact assessment for NO₂.  Paragraph 7.12.3 of the Local Impact Report showed that one human health receptor was modelled to experience a ‘moderate adverse’ impact however remained well below the air quality objective  Environmental Health Officers were satisfied that the assessment was robust and modelling had been agreed.  Levels remained within objective values and on that basis there were no objections.  Councillor Snell continued that there was no information regarding the number of vehicle movements the calculations were based upon.  He also queried whether shipments would arrive at night leading to large numbers of vehicle movements in close proximity to residential properties.  Paragraph 4.33 of the Local Impact Report summarised the operational details, again assessed on a worst case scenario, which saw four daily movements, two vessels in and out.  The Principal Highways Engineer advised that the port was proposed to process 1.6million tonnes / year which would be broken down by distribution methods:

• 150,000 tonnes ship borne                  (10%)
• 700,000 tonnes by rail             (45%)
• 750,000 tones by road                        (45-50%)

Officers were seeking to link the travel plan with the sustainable distribution plan.  The transport assessment had identified use of larger trucks, and so the applicant was asked to assess by smaller types, to take into account those without full loads, therefore the impact has been over assumed.  Officers had raised concerns regarding the Asda roundabout as they did not agree with the mitigation measures proposed, the concern was for the Thurrock road network as the mitigation measures would potentially impact on Thurrock Park Way and Dock Road, Tilbury.  Ultimately the onus was on Highways England to raise a representation around their highway assets.

The Committee adjourned at 9.09pm and reconvened at 9.14pm.

The Committee agreed to suspend standing orders at 9.14pm.

Councillor Piccolo queried figures outlined in paragraph 1.4 of the Local Impact Report, which showed an estimated throughput of 500,000 units per annum.  It was confirmed that this figure related to containers, not vehicle movements, and then sustainable distribution plan identified exports by certain means but the traffic impact only related to road distribution.  While it was accepted that there were some mitigation measures proposed there were still concerns.

Councillor Piccolo continued to ask what was proposed in case of problems at the port regarding the stacking of lorries in the local area.  He was especially concerned around the impact on major local infrastructure given the proximity to the Asda, Travis Perkins and Amazon sites.  The Principal Highways Engineer confirmed that there was no lorry park.  Facilities were proposed similar to those in place at DP World with vehicle booking systems and early warning systems in place as a back up to alert drivers not to arrive if at the port if problems were to arise.  Stacking on the A1089 could not be done legislatively and it was for the Port of Tilbury to mitigate the impact through directing and diverting HGVs.

Councillor Piccolo expressed concern that there was nothing in place to protect residents. Based upon his own experience, living in Stanford where drivers were advised not to go to DP World and so parked along the Manorway.  He felt something should be done that would be enforceable.

Councillor Hamilton accepted paragraph 7.8.3 of the Local Impact Report but added that 7.8.8 should be amended to say that an improved junction enhancement absolutely should be investigated, rather than ‘suggested’.

Councillor Rice emphasised that members supported 2,000 new jobs but reiterated the need for full environmental protection for residents.  He did not want to see HGVs cutting through Chadwell St Mary if there were issues on the A1089, and wanted that to be clear.  Officers were urged to discuss enhanced environmental measures along the A1089 with Highways England, as they were aware of the issues.  He felt the 45% distribution rate by rail was pleasing but would encourage the Port of Tilbury to work to increase that further and continue to reduce vehicle movements on the road network, and appealed to the Port of Tilbury to go above and beyond what was required of them.  He fully supported the proposal which offered much needed employment but he hoped it would benefit local people and local companies as it was important that they prospered from this development.

Councillor Ojetola noted that the debate had been very wide-ranging, as was only appropriate given the scale of the proposal.  He felt it was appropriate that Members scrutinised the matter not only in terms of material planning considerations but as Ward Councillors too.  Many of the questions asked and concerns raised had come from experience of previous developments in the area and he too appealed to the Port of Tilbury’s good grace to do as much as possible.  He felt it would have been preferable to receive the report at an earlier meeting to allow for a deferral if necessary rather than being limited by deadlines, and hoped that the reports sent to the Planning Inspectorate would reflect the views of Members.  He was pleased to see development at the port when DP World could have caused a negative impact and commended development and employment even if he was not completely satisfied.

Councillor Snell felt genuinely torn.  He accepted that Thurrock was an industrial area and that the job opportunities should not be discounted, however he had a real fear for the residents of Tilbury.  Aggregates and Roll On / Roll Offs would be noisy and he was unsure whether anything that could be done to mitigate would make a real difference.  He also felt that the proposal could not be assessed in isolation.  The expansion would create increased traffic and something needed to be done regarding the A1089.  There were issues around noise, air pollution and vehicle movements.  He felt the rail movements were aspirational and trailer traffic would be destined for relatively local areas and therefore would only be feasible via road.  He stated his uncertainty around voting for the proposal.

The Vice-Chair noted recent reports around Tilbury Regeneration had suggested greater use of the riverside and the flow of walking traffic.  He felt it was unacceptable that there was no direct route to the riverside.  He echoed Councillor Piccolo’s concern around lorries queuing, especially in the wake of Brexit and potential increased delays due to customs checks.  He noted that jobs and regeneration were welcome however he could not support the proposal as it stood.  The Port of Tilbury were good employers and did a great deal for the community however the same could not always be said for their tenants.  The fact that the port was managed by the Environment Agency and not Thurrock Council was an issue and he feared things would go wrong with no recourse.

The Chair echoed comments and asked that officers documented them specifically.  He agreed that traffic on the A1089 would be a concern and he was interested to see how things progressed.  Within proposals for the Lower Thames Crossing there had been mention of a relief road, which could be either positive or negative but either way was a long way in the future, so he was keen to see what Highways England would propose for the A10089.  He felt the expansion of the port was a fantastic opportunity for Thurrock and reminded Members that the Committee was not looking to approve or refuse the application, but to steer the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State.  He expressed his support for the expansion and the opportunity to secure the future of the Port of Tilbury, albeit with some pressing issues.

Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Ojetola sought clarification as to whether the submissions would include amendments suggested by Members.  The Development Management Team Leader advised that Members’ comments would be outside of the formal submission and would form part of ongoing discussions; however paragraph 7.8.8 of the Local Impact Report would be amended as per Councillor Hamilton’s request prior to submission.

It was proposed by the Chair and seconded by Councillor Rice that the Planning Committee consider and agree the content of both the Local Impact Report forming Appendix 1 and the Written Representation forming Appendix 2 and that these Appendices  are formally submitted to PINS on or before the deadline of 20^th March 2018.

For:                  Councillors Tom Kelly (Chair), Colin Churchman, Graham Hamilton, Roy Jones, Tunde Ojetola, Terry Piccolo and Gerard Rice

Against:           (0)

Abstain:           Councillors Steve Liddiard (Vice-Chair) and Graham Snell

RESOLVED:

That the Planning Committee consider and agree the content of both the Local Impact Report forming Appendix 1 and the Written Representation forming Appendix 2 and that these Appendices  are formally submitted to PINS on or before the deadline of 20^th March 2018.