Minutes:
Mr Protheroe began his
presentation by introducing himself and stating that he was the
Development Director for Cascade, who worked on behalf of Highways
England (HE). He introduced the design refinement consultation that
was currently taking place and stated that he would be providing an
overview to the consultation through his presentation, and wanted
as many responses from stakeholders and residents as possible. He
moved on and stated that the proposed LTC would be the biggest
investment in Kent and Essex since the M25, and the Department for
Transport and Highways England believed it would double road
capacity, whilst supporting local and regional growth by opening up
markets. He mentioned that there would be opportunities for
residents both during the construction phase and in the longer
term.
Mr Protheroe moved on to outlining the refinements to the scheme
that had been made since supplementary consultation, including a
reduction in the overall size of the development boundary and other
changes such as, updated pedestrian paths, and fewer utilities
diversions. He added that more detailed landscaping work had also
been undertaken, and HE had completed some ecological mitigation
measures. He clarified that because of COVID-19 no in-person
consultation events would be taking place, and HE were adopting a
‘digital first’ approach, which included postal and
telephone consultation. He stated that deposit locations and
information points for consultation documents had been limited by
government guidelines on COVID-19.
Mr Protheroe then discussed the reduction of the size of the
development boundary, which had been reduced from 26.21km to
22.89km, which equalled a reduction of 12.5%. He stated that the
homes affected by the scheme had also been reduced by 45% to 150
homes, and these reductions had been achieved through utility
diversions. Mr Protheroe understood that the scheme would have a
large personal impact on those homeowners affected, but felt this
was relatively small for such a large scheme. He clarified that
certain parcels of land would only be needed during the
construction period for utilities diversions and construction
sites, and would be returned to landowners in its previous
condition once the scheme was complete.
Mr Protheroe moved on to discuss the environmental impacts of the
scheme, and stated that the design refinement had also managed to
decrease the impact of the scheme on areas of ancient woodland, and
improve habitats for some species, through the introduction of
green bridges. He added that 17 noise barriers had also now been
added along the route, as well as landscaping proposals to minimise
the visual impact of the project on above ground infrastructure. He
added that the scheme also required a small number of permanent
substations, some larger substations, and a switching station,
which would all be fenced off to ensure security. He added that the
refinement consultation also outlined the new plans for connecting
the water mains to the Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), and the use of
trenchless technology for below ground utilities.
Mr Protheroe then explained the differences at the north tunnel
entrance from supplementary consultation to design refinement. He
clarified that the main improvement was the earthworks provision of
nice views to Coalhouse Fort and Tilbury Fort, which had been added
to the tunnel entrance. He stated that these earthworks would be
used from construction spoil, and the area around the tunnel
entrance would be returned to its current grazing usage. Mr
Protheroe then moved onto the differences at the design refinement
stage in Tilbury, and outlined the four noise barriers that would
be over 700m long and 1-2m high. He stated that these would be
positioned in Tilbury between the tunnel and Muckingford Road. He
added that footpath 61 had also been realigned and amended
slightly, and footpath 200 had been diverted to allow better
connectivity for pedestrians between Tilbury and Chadwell St Mary.
Mr Protheroe added that a new water supply would also be added in
Linford to provide water to the TBM, which would be placed in the
Fort Road, Lower Crescent, Muckingford Road, Coopers Shaw Road, Gun
Hill area.
Councillor Allen questioned whether any water from the Thames could
be used for the TBM. Mr Protheroe confirmed that HE had considered
this option, but was not viable due to water quality, reliability,
water extraction, and the lack of fire suppressant. Councillor
Allen asked if the water used for the TBM would reduce water
pressure for residents in Linford. Mr Protheroe confirmed that this
was the reason a new water main was being added in the Fort Road
area, and confirmed that water pressure would not be affected.
Councillor Allen queried whether the noise barriers would be on the
elevated sections of the LTC, near to the old power station. Mr
Stanier confirmed that noise barriers in Tilbury would be located
east near Station Road, and would be up to 2m high, as well as near
Muckingford Road, where they would also be 2m in height. He added
that noise barriers would also be added where the LTC crossed the
Tilbury Loop Line and these would be approximately 1m in height.
Councillor Allen queried when the Council and Task Force would be
able to see the Ecological Impact Assessment (EIA), and Mr
Protheroe confirmed that a working version of the document had been
shared with Council officers, but would not be published until
Development Consent Order (DCO) submission in autumn 2020. The
Assistant Director LTC confirmed that various chapters of the early
draft EIA had been shared with Council officers on the same day
that the design refinement consultation had been announced, so
officers had not had a chance to review it yet.
The Resident Representative questioned how effective the noise
barriers would be. Mr Protheroe replied that he could not comment
as HE were working with Thurrock to complete the Local Landscape
Impact Assessment. He clarified that this document would take into
account the landscape to ensure that noise barriers were as
effective as they could be, but it could be difficult as the
barriers required regular maintenance access. He added that HE
created noise calculations based on traffic figures in surrounding
areas, and the standard noise barrier was a 2m high timber fence.
He mentioned that this would not be confirmed until the standard
pre and post surveying had been completed. He highlighted that the
EIA would set out the performance of the noise barriers, and
further potential mitigation would be detailed at this phase.
Mr Protheroe continued with his presentation and outlined the
changes at design refinement consultation to the Orsett Cock
roundabout. He stated that the proposed location for the travellers
site had been moved to adjacent their current site, with access
from Gammonfields Way. He commented that the potential site would
be 1.5 hectares, with an additional 1.5 hectares for access and
landscaping. Mr Protheroe stated that changes had also been made to
the A13 merge layout, as this would now be a two lane merge, rather
than one lane. He stated that false cutting had also been removed
between A128 Brentwood Road and Hoford Road due to a watercourse,
but additional planting and fencing, including noise barriers 550m
long and 6m in height, would be included to visually screen the
road. Mr Protheroe mentioned that seven small substations would
also be near the A13/LTC junction, as well as necessary maintenance
tracks, and the previously proposed shared path under the A13 had
been removed. He stated that at supplementary consultation a new
footpath under the A13 had been considered, but had not been
progressed to this stage due to the closeness to the A13. He added
that HE had also considered the woodland near Baker Street, and in
the new design, the public would be able to access this. He added
that noise barriers would also be put in place at the Orsett Cock
roundabout, which would be 500m long and 5m in height. The Thames
Crossing Action Group (TCAG) Representative queried this figure, as
in the consultation documents on page 59, it stated 2m high. Mr
Stanier confirmed this was an error in the presentation and the
noise barriers at Orsett Cock would be 2m high.
Mr Protheroe continued the presentation and confirmed that part of
the Orsett Showground site would be permanently required for
construction, as a gas pipeline would have to be moved. He added
that a replacement site adjacent to the current site had been
proposed. Mr Stanier confirmed that because of this, there would be
a larger noise barrier near Brentwood Road. Mr Protheroe stated
that in the Mardyke Valley, noise barriers up to 1500m long and 1m
high would be in place, as well as long sections of the viaduct and
embankment. He added that utility works would also be permanently
created in this area, with access from Green Lane, which had
increased the boundary development there. Mr Protheroe moved on to
describing the changes at design refinement consultation at the
junction between the LTC and M25, and stated that noise barriers
would be in place which would be 200m long and 2m in height. He
added that woodland planting would also have to be reduced in The
Wilderness as a result of a watercourse diversion. He added that a
small 3mx3m substation would be added near to Clay Tides Farm. Mr
Protheroe confirmed that the Thames Chase Forest Centre (TCFC)
would also need a new maintenance track due to multi-utilities
diversion to the north of the site, but a proposed footbridge over
the M25 would reconnect the TCFC with the wider environment. He
added that sewer diversion works would also be needed from Ockendon
Road to St Marys Lane, as well as overhead electricity cable
diversion works around B186 North Road. Mr Protheroe also confirmed
that a new footbridge would be added at junction 29 of the M25,
over the A127, as well as gas diversion works near Folkes Lane, and
the movement of electricity cables underground around the
LTC.
Mr Protheroe stated that the design refinement consultation would
last between 14 July and 12 August, and there was a specific
consultation website, as well as moderated webinars and telephone
surgery. He stated that consultation documents were available
online and via post, and the online website also contained
exhibitions, such as interactive maps, boards and videos. He added
that there were also live events that had been promoted through
various social media channels, and a leaflet drop to every affects
resident within a 2km radius of the route. He mentioned that a
total of 135,000 leaflets had been distributed, as well as print
media and stakeholder engagement with the consultation.
Mr Protheroe moved onto outlining the progress of the scheme so
far, starting with the first public consultation in spring 2016,
the preferred route announcement in April 2017, and the statutory
consultation in October 2018, the start of ground investigation
works in July 2019, and finally the supplementary consultation in
January 2020. He outlined the next steps of the project which
included the conclusion of the design consultation in August 2020,
DCO submission in autumn 2020, DCO examination, with a decision
being made in 2022, and a targeted road opening of 2027/28.
Mr Protheroe hoped that residents and stakeholders would get
involved with the design consultation, as 74,000 people had visited
the consultation website for the supplementary consultation, with
6,000 responses submitted.
Councillor Jefferies opened questions and stated that as there were
no public consultation events, large sections of Thurrock residents
might not be able to access the consultation. He added that as
leaflets had only been dropped within a 2km radius of the route,
large sections of Thurrock such as Chadwell St Mary and Ockendon,
may not be aware that the route might affect them. Councillor
Jefferies asked if HE could write to all residents outlining the
proposals. He also asked what HE plans were for woodland in
Ockendon, and what footbridge work would be undertaken in that
area. Mr Protheroe stated that residents who would be affected by
the scheme had received two weeks’ notice prior to the design
consultation, to give residents enough time to request paper copies
of the consultation. He added that ta footbridge in Ockendon over
the LTC had been included in the supplementary consultation, and
had been wrongly listed in the presentation as a new feature at
design refinement. Councillor Jefferies felt that not all residents
were aware of the route, even though it could affect their lives
and asked for HE to consider all Thurrock residents, including
those in Ockendon, Chadwell St Mary and Tilbury. Mr Protheroe
confirmed that residents should have been made aware of the scheme
during statutory and supplementary consultation, and the design
refinement had not made any significant changes. The Assistant
Director LTC felt that the design refinement consultation should
have been postponed due to the lack of in-person consultation
events. She highlighted that Thurrock Council had currently
postponed any consultations due to concerns around engagement,
particularly as deposit locations such as libraries and the civic
offices. She stated that some areas of Thurrock had poor internet
infra-structure, and Thurrock had documented this and raised
concerns with HE.
Councillor Rice asked if HE had considered proposals to move the
route further east, towards Canvey Island, which had better
connectivity routes to A120, M11, A14, A1/M1, A127, A12 and A130.
He felt that the proposed crossing would not offer a long-term
solution to the problems at the Dartford Crossing, and would
negatively impact the countryside and green spaces in Thurrock. He
felt noise barriers should be put in around Foxes Green and Orsett
Heath as some residential properties in this area would come within
200m of the proposed route. He stated that Thurrock residents have
the highest rates of COPD outside of London, and the new route
would increase pollution and respiratory problems amongst the
population. He asked if HE had considered putting the route into a
tunnel, or cut and cover, as had been done along section of the
M25. He asked if HE could send a copy of the presentation made at
the meeting to every resident, with particular focus on those in
East Tilbury, South Ockendon, Orsett, Bulphan and Chadwell St Mary.
Councillor Rice added that 6m high noise barriers should be added
along Heath Road, Godman Road and Cedar Road, as well as near the
tower blocks in Chadwell St Mary. Mr Protheroe responded that lots
of investigation work had been done before the preferred route
announcement in 2017, and the current location had been optimum. He
added that the EIA would show the impact on air quality across the
borough, and would present potential mitigation, when it was
published at DCO submission. He added that cut and cover and
tunnels along the route had been considered, but were not
cost-effective. He added that the consultation documents were
available to all residents for their consideration, and would be
sent free of charge in the post, if residents needed it.
The Assistant Director LTC added that in general, noise barriers
ranged from 1m to 6m in height, and asked HE if the height of the
noise barriers along the route would be linked to land and road
level. She felt concerned that a 1m high noise barrier would not be
useful if the road was elevated higher than the existing ground. Mr
Protheroe replied that no detailed designs had been developed, but
the height of the noise barriers was based on the use of 3D land
models of the surrounding area. He stated that HE also used traffic
forecasting and webtag approved software to model the road
conditions, before modelling with mitigations included to see the
difference. The Assistant Director LTC shared her concerns
regarding the visual impact of the noise barriers, as this could
negatively affect residents who would live near the proposed route.
Mr Protheroe replied that the visual impact of the noise barriers
would be discussed in the EIA.
Councillor Muldowney felt that the supplementary consultation had
been flawed due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had
distracted people. She added that she felt the design refinement
consultation would also be flawed, for example the phone number to
request consultation documents was not a Freephone number, and
libraries were not open for deposit locations. She stated that at
the last Task Force meeting, they had considered the response to
the supplementary consultation, and asked how this response had fed
into the design refinement consultation. She felt that she was not
able to answer resident’s questions, as the EIA was not being
published until DCO submission, which she felt was too late. She
added that she had also been having problems with the online
supplementary consultation, as she had had to submit her response
three times, and then received a bounce back email. She felt that
all consultations should be accessible for everybody, including
those that did not have access to the internet. Mr Protheroe noted
Councillor Muldowney’s feelings towards the supplementary
consultation, and stated that it had been extended by two weeks due
to the outbreak of the pandemic. He stated that all government
guidelines had been followed, such as no face-to-face meetings, but
felt that the consultation was still accessible. He added that he
would look into Councillor Muldowney’s problems with the
email bounce back. He added that the response from supplementary
consultation had been included in this consultation, such as the
reduced impact for ancient woodland, and highlighted that a
consultation response document would be included at DCO submission,
in which all responses would be summarised. Mr Stanier confirmed
that to call HE to request consultation documents was a standard
local rate.
Councillor Spillman sought assurance from HR that the responses
from all consultations would be considered before the proposal went
to DCO submission. He felt that the borough had seen massive change
in travel usage post-COVID19, as more people worked from home,
which was a trend that was likely to continue. He asked if HE would
pause the scheme to consider the fundamental changes in usage of
cars, and if the scheme would still be necessary. Mr Protheroe
responded that HE’s current traffic model did not take into
account travel post-COVID, but this position would be included as
the scheme progressed. The Assistant Director LTC questioned the
inclusion of green vehicles in the traffic model. Mr Protheroe
replied that HE used conservative estimations in the number of
green vehicles at road opening, as the EIA always considered the
‘worst case scenario’. He stated that there was a piece
of work to be completed regarding the level of traffic post-COVID,
but people did not currently know the long-term effects or changes
in working environments.
Councillor Shinnick queried the movement of the traveller’s
site, and the Assistant Director LTC confirmed that the petition
had been submitted to Full Council asking for the Council not to
consider any sites in the Blackshots area. She stated that the
current proposal moved the traveller’s immediately west of
their current location, which was approximately 350m away from the
nearest properties.
Councillor Rice queried the proposed construction hours for the
site, and asked if HE were going to try to reduce the number of
construction vehicles. Mr Protheroe responded that HE would work
with Thurrock to develop a Code of Construction Practice, which
would set out the construction constraints and performance
specification. He stated that the finalised construction hours
would be set out in the local road impact report, which would be
submitted at DCO. The Assistant Director LTC clarified that
although Thurrock could impact the Code of Construction Practice,
HE would have final sign-off of the document. She shared Councillor
Rice’s concern over the currently proposed construction
hours.
The Thames Crossing Action Group (TCAG) Representative stated that
she had been liaising with residents across the borough, and
confirmed that some had received letters when they were outside the
development boundary, and others inside the development boundary
had not received anything. She added that HE’s Lower Thames
Crossing website had not been updated to reflect the design
refinement consultation, which could also be confusing for
residents. She added that the map books had some errors, such as
wrong place names and spellings, and map book three was also
incorrect. She felt that the design refinement consultation was
rushed, and that HE needed to listen to the supplementary
consultation responses before launching another consultation. She
felt that some residents were also experiencing consultation
fatigue, as there had now been three lengthy consultations. Mr
Protheroe began his response by stating that if residents felt
concerned regarding any letter they had received, they could call
HE who would discuss the matter with them. The TCAG Representative
stated that the land and property team took a long time to respond,
in some cases up to fourteen days. Mr Stanier replied that if
residents received a letter stating they were in the development
boundary, they could schedule a follow-up call the next day.
Councillor Allen stated that the route needed to be right by
design, and should mitigate the long lasting impacts that the route
would cause to residents health. He stated that as the route would
be a toll-road, any cost of the scheme would be repaid in full, and
asked if some of this money could go towards protecting
people’s health across Thurrock. Mr Protheroe replied that
this was not within the remit of HE, and would fall under the
Department of Transport. Councillor Muldowney asked when an update
would be received regarding the Health Impact Assessment, as the
borough already had increased rates of COPD and other respiratory
problems. Mr Protheroe replied that the HIA would be made public at
DCO submission.
The Assistant Director LTC stated that she had written formally to
HE and documented all the concerns that had been raised by the Task
Force. She felt that the consultation was rushed and there was a
lack of information sharing from HE. She added that once the DCO
had been submitted, the Council’s ability to change the route
was dramatically reduced. She questioned what economic growth and
improvement would be seen by Thurrock residents, and questioned who
the new earthworks and views from the north tunnel portal could be
viewed by, whether for the resident or road user. Mr Protheroe
replied that the scheme would benefit Thurrock as the Benefit-Cost
Ratio proved this. He stated he would set out the specific benefits
and look to share this at a later date. The Assistant Director LTC
highlighted that the Benefit-Cost Ratio highlighted the benefits
for the wider Essex area, Kent and the East Midlands, but did not
show the benefits for Thurrock specifically. Mr Protheroe added
that the earthworks views over the northern portal would be for the
resident, as they would be able to access this area.
Supporting documents: