Items
No. |
Item |
25. |
Apologies for Absence
Minutes:
There were no apologies for absence.
|
26. |
Minutes PDF 217 KB
To approve as a correct record the minutes of
the Lower Thames Crossing Task Force meeting held on 12 October
2020.
Minutes:
Councillor Muldowney requested
that the minutes on page 5 be expanded to include all green areas
which she had listed at the meeting. She commented that it had been
agreed other green spaces should be on the list, specifically
Orsett Heath and Wicken Fields. She also requested that the
mitigation list be updated accordingly.
The Task Force agreed these amendments, and the minutes of the
Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) Task Force meeting held on 12 October
2020 were approved as a true and correct record.
|
27. |
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.
Minutes:
There were no items of the
urgent business.
|
28. |
Declaration of Interests
Minutes:
There were no declarations of
interest.
|
29. |
DCO Withdrawal & Next Steps - verbal report
Minutes:
The Chair thanked the Assistant
Director LTC, as well as other officers, for their hard work on
this item. He also thanked consultants Stantec, who were working
hard to support the Council. He specifically thanked Dermot
Scanlon, Claire Sawing, Emma-May Eshelby, and Chris Stratford of
Stantec who had worked hard to bring together Thurrock, Havering
and Gravesham.
The Assistant Director LTC introduced the report and stated that
Highways England (HE) had submitted their Development Consent Order
(DCO) on 23 October 2020, and Thurrock had been given until 6
November 2020 to provide their adequacy of consultation response,
which had been shared to Task Force Members via email. She added
that the response would also be published on Thurrock
Council’s website, and the LTC team were working with the
Communications team to ensure the website was updated. She
commented that Havering and Gravesham had already published their
adequacy of consultation responses. The Assistant Director LTC
added that the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) had written to HE
before the deadline requesting more information, which HE had then
provided. She outlined that PINS had then stated they were minded
to refuse the DCO application, at which point HE withdrew. She
stated that PINS had published a 49 page document which set out the
issues and concerns they had with the application, but outlined
that HE were still planning to re-submit next year. The Assistant
Director LTC commented that Thurrock Council were planning to meet
with HE to work with them, and updates on these meetings would be
provided to the Task Force.
The Stantec Senior Consultant then summarised the 49 page PINS
document, and stated that it was divided into two sections. He
stated that the first section, which was 12 pages long, was
essentially what would have been the PINS non-acceptance letter. He
stated that the rest of the document was from BDB Pitmans, who
represented HE and were working on their behalf, and was a
signposting request, which answered the PINS non-acceptance letter.
He stated that PINS had raised ten issues with the DCO submission,
which were outlined in the letter.
The Stantec Senior Consultant outlined those ten issues and stated
that the first issue had been with the Highways and Transport
Assessment. He explained that this was divided into two aspects:
the transport modelling, both during construction and operation,
whose methodology and approach had been tried and tested during
many projects; and the Transport Assessment which was supposed to
look at impacts of the proposal and potential mitigation. He
described that the Transport Assessment had not been published, as
HE felt it did not need to be submitted until the DCO had been
approved. He stated that PINS had disagreed with this approach and
had requested a Transport Assessment be submitted. He added that
PINS also felt the transport information submitted only focussed on
larger roads, was too generic, did not contain enough detail, and
did not outline any potential environmental impacts. He explained
that Thurrock had repeatedly requested this information,
...
view the full minutes text for item 29.
|
30. |
Economic Mitigation List PDF 1 MB
Minutes:
The Assistant Director of LTC
introduced the report and stated that the summary document was now
in phase 2, and renewed discussions were now underway with HE,
including Matt Palmer who was the new HE Executive Director. She
stated that a full list of mitigation had now been shared
confidentially with HE, but this would be published in January and
would include the full technical document and non-technical
summary. She stated that Thurrock were meeting with HE tomorrow,
but that HE had verbally stated a significant proportion of
mitigation would be included at DCO submission. The Assistant
Director LTC added that any mitigation that was not agreed by HE
would be reported back to the Task Force in the New Year. She
commented that mitigation would be provided either through a s106
Agreement or through a grant agreement, which would need to be
agreed by Thurrock’s Cabinet. She stated that the report had
not been updated as hoped, but there had been lots of changes made
recently, which would be presented to the Task Force in the New
Year.
Councillor Rice questioned if additional noise mitigation in
Chadwell St Mary and Tilbury had been considered. The Stantec
Senior Consultant responded that these locations had been
highlighted as requiring additional mitigation due to construction
noise and vulnerable communities living in these areas. He stated
that these areas currently did not have enough mitigation or noise
barriers, and would be looked at in detail, due to the proximity of
population centres. Councillor Muldowney queried if the enhancement
of green spaces included in the mitigation list had been updated.
The Assistant Director LTC replied that there was no new additional
detail included in the mitigation list, but more detail would be
available after the meeting with HE tomorrow. She stated that the
team had lots of work to do surrounding the mitigation list. She
stated that they were currently identifying solutions, and proposed
a tracker be included with the mitigation list, which would be
updated monthly. The Stantec Senior Consultant added that since the
previous Task Force meeting, the main report had been updated with
the list of green spaces Councillor Muldowney had requested.
Councillor Allen stated that the proposed route would be a toll
road, and asked if Thurrock Council could receive a percentage of
money from the collection of tolls. He stated that this could
mitigate the impact of the route, and help to sustain Thurrock over
many years. The Assistant Director LTC responded that the Council
were currently trying to secure a percentage of the tolls, which
they hoped could be added to an environmental sinking fund. She
added that the Council were also trying to ensure that if HE
breached environmental regulations, Thurrock would also receive
money. She stated that this fell under the remit of the Department
for Transport, rather than HE. The Stantec Senior Consultant stated
that this fell under M18 toll hypothefication, which would source
money for Thurrock to deal with support projects. He added that
...
view the full minutes text for item 30.
|
31. |
A303: Questions and Comments - verbal report
Minutes:
The Assistant Director of LTC
introduced the report and gave some context to the A303 Stonehenge
project, including the successful challenge to the additional
runway at Heathrow, the Paris Agreement, and the 2014 National
Infrastructure Policy Statement. She stated that the A303
Stonehenge project was the first project since the successful
Heathrow challenge, and DCO had been granted on 12 November,
although this had originally been due in early 2020. She stated
that the project would see a dual carriageway being put in a tunnel
underneath the Stonehenge site, and although the PINS panel had
recommended to refuse the DCO application, this had been overturned
by the Secretary of State and DCO had been granted. She commented
that the panel had decided to refuse the application due to the
potential harm it could have caused the UNESCO World Heritage Site,
but a challenge to the decision to grant had already been sought by
the Stonehenge Alliance. She mentioned that any updates on the A303
scheme would be added to the Work Programme, and brought before the
Committee for discussion.
The Chair thanked officers for bringing forward the update as he
felt it was good to see other DCO applications and issues around
the country. Councillor Muldowney questioned the relevance the A303
project had on the LTC proposal. The Assistant Director LTC replied
that it was the only scheme which had been recommended for refusal
and then overturned. She stated that the Halite gas storage
facility had had the opposite issue from the A303, and had been
recommended for approval and then overturned by the Secretary of
State and sent back to PINS for a new decision. She stated that if
the Stonehenge Alliance challenge was successful, the scheme would
go back to the PINS panel for them to look at their decision again.
She added that the Stonehenge Alliance would have to have a
successful application of judicial review, then a successful
judicial review, before it would be sent back to PINS. She added
that it would be interesting for Thurrock to see what the
Stonehenge Alliance’s grounds for challenge would be. She
stated that any learning from the A303 Stonehenge project would be
applied to the LTC and any updates brought before the Task
Force.
Councillor Muldowney asked if the Assistant Director had been
surprised that the Secretary of State had overturned the PINS
decision. The Assistant Director LTC stated that she had been
surprised by the PINS panel refusal, as the scheme would actually
reduce noise in the area; improve the Stonehenge experience;
increase access on historic roads; and improve the tranquillity of
the area, as well as the visitor experience. She understood why the
panel had refused, due to factors such as buried historic
artefacts, which would potentially be disturbed by the tunnel,
particularly near the junctions where the tunnel rose to surface
level. She added that English Heritage, who owned and managed the
site, had also been supportive of the scheme.
|
32. |
Work Programme PDF 25 KB
Minutes:
The Assistant Director LTC
stated that officers and the Chair would review the Work Programme
offline, but would include items on: CO2 emissions; the Energy
White Paper; DCO review and summary; update to the Transport Action
Network challenge; A303 Stonehenge updates; prioritisation of the
mitigation list. She added that HE had been invited to the January
Task Force meeting, where the new HE Executive Director would
present on the scheme’s design, including the
viaduct.
|