Venue: Training Room, The Beehive Community Resource Centre, West Street, Grays, RM17 6XP
Contact: Lucy Tricker, Senior Democratic Services Officer
Minutes PDF 210 KB
To approve as a correct record the minutes of
the Lower Thames Crossing Task Force meeting held on 17 January
The minutes of the meeting from the Lower
Thames Crossing Task Force held on 17 January 2022 were approved as
a true and correct record.
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
There were no items of urgent business.
Declaration of Interests
There were no interests declared.
National Highways Compensation Policy PDF 68 KB
Councillor Kent queried the purpose of the
report. The Chair stated that the issue of compensation had not
been discussed by the Task Force previously and gave the
opportunity for officers to answer questions and provide comment.
The Senior Consultant Stantec introduced the report and stated that
compensation given by National Highways (NH) was divided into two
parts: the first was statutory compensation that had been contained
within section three of the Council’s formal consultation
response; and non-statutory compensation.
The Senior Director CBRE stated that compensation could also be
given in three instances where no land was taken from a
a. Section 10 of the Land Compensation Act
(commonly known as the McCarthy Rules) which were only applicable
where a right benefitting retained land was impacted causing
reduction in the value of retained assets. He gave an example of if
a resident had their access rights impacted by the scheme, which
subsequently reduced the value of their house, then they might be
entitled to compensation for the reduction in value arising from
the executive of the works. He explained that NH would often negate
a claim by re-providing the right (in the example by providing an
alternative access to the house).
b. Noise insulation regulations, which were only
available to houses within 300m of the scheme and where:
i. The ‘Relevant Noise Level’ was at least 68 dB(A)
L10(18 – hour).
ii. The ‘Relevant Noise Level’ was at least 1 dB(A)
more than the
‘Prevailing Noise Level’.
iii. New roads would contribute at least 1 dB(A) to the
‘Relevant Noise Level’.
He stated that the compensation offered under these regulations
would be to mitigate the impact of the noise, for example by
offering to pay for double or triple glazing, or other noise
reducing works. He added that the noise threshold of 70 decibels
was extremely high, and therefore only limited residents were
likely to qualify for compensation under these regulations.
c. Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973, which
compensated the owner of a house or interested land for the reduced
value of their asset caused by physical factors arising from the
use of the works. He stated that these physical factors included
noise, smoke, dust, and fumes, but did not take into account loss
of views. He stated that this compensation could only be accessed
one year after LTC scheme opening, and residents either had to own
the freehold to their property or have a long leasehold interest in
rented property to apply. The Senior Director CBRE stated that it
would be difficult for residents affected by the construction of
the route to claim compensation, and non-compulsory purchases would
not be regularly offered, even if residents were affected by noise,
dust or traffic.
The Chair sought clarification that non-statutory compensation
would not be widely available during the construction phase, and
queried how many properties in Thurrock would be negatively
affected by the construction. The Senior Consultant replied that NH
had undertaken an exercise to identify all ...
view the full minutes text for item 54.
Verbal Update: Health Impact Assessment
The Senior Consultant stated that there was no
update regarding the Health Impact Assessment (HIA), but the team
were continuing to push and ask for updates. He stated that the
team were still waiting on technical reports to be submitted by NH,
and they were currently chasing these. He added that he was unsure
of the dates for the next consultation, as these had not yet been
agreed by NH, but the closing date for comments from affected local
authorities was Monday 14 February. He explained that NH were still
planning on submitting their DCO later this year, but a firm date
had not yet been confirmed. The Senior Consultant commented that
the team were also waiting on the updated operational cordon
traffic model, which they were hoping to receive by the end of the
month, and would then receive the updated air quality and noise
assessments from NH approximately 6-8 weeks after that.
The Chair asked if any progress on the HIA had been made since the
last Task Force meeting in January. The Senior Consultant Stantec
replied that there had been little progress since January, but
regular CIPHAG meetings were being held every six weeks, which had
provided additional information on how NH carried out their
assessments. Councillor Muldowney thanked the Senior Democratic
Services Officer for circulating version 1 of the HEqIA, and
queried how NH had determined that the scheme would have a neutral
impact on health due to climate change. The Senior Consultant
replied that the DCO v1 had been submitted in October 2021 and had
probably been finalised in mid-2021, which was before the
governments drive to decarbonise and climate change had formed part
of the government’s core policy. He stated that the HEqIA had
been based on policy at the time, and the team hoped the document
would change in line with the updated climate policies. He
explained that the bar for regulation impacts requiring mitigation
was high, and therefore a scheme had to have a large impact on the
local area and local pollution levels before it required
mitigation. Councillor Muldowney stated that Thurrock’s
public health team had analysed the standards that NH used and had
found them to be lacking. The Senior Consultant added that an
independent audit into the methodology used for the HEqIA had been
undertaken and paid for by NH, and scrutinised by the public health
teams for nine impacted local authorities, who had lots of
methodological criticisms. He stated that NH had committed to
adopting approximately 80-90% of the criticisms recommended through
Councillor Muldowney asked if any progress had been made regarding
NH commitment to local work and training for the scheme. The Senior
Consultant replied that the team had asked NH for apprentice
targets, local labour targets and worklessness targets, and he felt
that NH were slowly beginning to agree with Thurrock on the need
and benefits of these targets. Councillor Chukwu questioned the
overall cost of the scheme, particularly considering the rising
cost of ...
view the full minutes text for item 55.
Work Programme PDF 118 KB
The Chair queried if any progress had been
made on inviting NH to a Task Force meeting. The Senior Consultant
responded that the team were waiting on NH to confirm their
consultation dates before an invitation was sent. The TCAG
Representative asked if a report regarding the Council’s
communication strategy and the LTC could be brought to the Task
Force. The Senior Consultant replied that he would liaise with The
Interim Assistant Director Regeneration and Place Delivery
regarding this request. He explained that Thurrock were currently
reviewing their LTC website to make it more agile and
user-friendly, as well as undertaking a piece of work to ensure
customer service for NH met the required standard.