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, but had
been denied. The Stantec Senior Consultant then stated that HE had
much more work to do regarding the detail of construction traffic
management, as the construction phase would last between 5 and 6
years. He added that HE needed to include detail regarding the
construction traffic management plans, including outlining where
diversions, traffic lights, and road closures would be situated. He
added that currently the traffic management was not secured, so HE
did not have to follow it when construction began.
The Stantec Senior Consultant then moved on and explained the issue
surrounding the river and jetty usage. He commented that PINS had
felt a lack of consistency from HE surrounding the level of usage
and amount of time the jetty would be used for. He added that HE
also did not undertake a navigational assessment, which would
outline barge usage along the river.
The Stantec Senior Consultant added that PINS had also found
problems with site waste management, for example excavation of the
site and tunnel, and demolition works. He stated that PINS felt it
was not clear what would happen to spoil from the works, if it
would be reused, or if it would be removed via road or waterway. He
added that the government were also following policies meant to
reduce carbon emissions, and this had not been discussed by HE in
relation to site waste management.
The Stantec Senior Consultant then explained issues regarding the
Habitat Regulation Assessment. He explained that this should have
assessed whether the proposed route would affect protected areas
such as wetland and wading birds, which included both banks of the
river Thames. He stated that HE had not defined or quantified these
affects, or the combination of affects. He commented that this fell
under the responsibility of Natural England, who were working hard
on this issue.
The Stantec Senior Consultant stated that 30%, or 3.5 pages, of the
PINS document outlined how HE had not followed government guidance,
for example on consultation, which included lack of feedback to
consultation responses and lack of detail within the consultation
itself. He added that the rest of the issues were relatively minor,
but included how HE’s Landscape and Ecology Management Plan
had not shown how land and ecology mitigation would be achieved. He
added that eleven consultees had been missed off and had not been
involved in the consultation, such as some utility networks, South
Fleet Parish Council and the Commissioner of Police of the
Metropolis. The Stantec Senior Consultant then outlined other minor
errors and omissions made by HE including the Book of Reference,
which should include every piece of land or land interest affected
by the proposal in a catalogue format. He stated that the Book of
Reference had not included a graphic representation of permanent or
temporary land plans, or a Works Plan. He added that other plans
also did not include searchable PDFs. He summarised and stated that
the issues could be divided up into four areas, which were:
transport and waste; navigation and jetty; habitat; and government
guidelines. He added that the letter from BDB Pitmans stated that
HE had delivered schemes of this nature and size before, and
therefore did not need to do anything, but this had been written
prior to the changes in personnel that HE had made.
Councillor Massey opened the debate and questioned whether Orsett
Hospital had been consulted with, as the PINS letter stated
‘Onsett’ Hospital. He felt that the proposed route
would have an impact on the hospital, and therefore they should
have been consulted. The Stantec Senior Consultant replied and
stated that he assumed this was a typo, and should have been Orsett
Hospital, but would confirm this with HE. Councillor Muldowney
thanked officers and consultants for their hard work on the
adequacy of consultancy response, which had highlighted the
significant issues. She felt the withdrawal of the DCO by HE was a
victory for Thurrock Council and their neighbours, which had been
unexpected. She felt that the Task Force had been talking about the
problems with the plans and consultations for a long time, and felt
pleased to see that PINS had recognised these issues too. She added
that she was also pleased to hear that a new consultation might
occur, and hoped that this would be better than previous
consultations held by HE. The Assistant Director LTC added that the
DCO document included the Health Impact Assessment (HIA), which
would be reviewed in the New Year, and potentially presented to the
Task Force in March 2021. Councillor Muldowney felt it would be
good to see the HIA before DCO submission, as it would contain a
lot of substantial health information.
The Thames Crossing Action Group (TCAG) Representative thanked the
Assistant Director LTC and Stantec for their hard work in producing
the adequacy of consultation response. Councillor Rice questioned
the Transport Assessment, and asked if the updated version of this
document would include additional requirements for cut and cover
along the route. He added that cut and cover provided additional
protection for residents, particularly in Chadwell St Mary and
Orsett Heath where the proposed route came within 500 metres of
people’s homes. The Assistant Director LTC replied that the
updated Transport Assessment would not include additional cut and
cover along the route as this was not a viable mitigation solution,
but would look at alternative potential mitigation, for example
traffic lights, roundabouts, and weight restrictions on local
roads. She added that the Port of Tilbury were currently in
discussion with HE to use the port to bring construction materials
to the site, which would reduce the number of construction vehicles
on local roads.
Councillor Allen questioned the Ecological and Environmental Impact
Assessment, and asked if this had been detailed enough. He added
that the proposed route would have numerous environmental impacts,
including increased CO2 emissions, and increased PM2.5 and PM10,
both during route construction and operation. The Assistant
Director LTC replied that the team were currently undertaking a
full review of the Environmental Impact Assessment and
Environmental Statement, which would be brought before the Task
Force in the New Year. She stated that if the proposed route
breached current air quality regulations, then HE would have to
mitigate against this, and Thurrock Council would be pushing for
enhanced mitigation. She added that the environmental impact of the
route on surrounding areas would be reduced if traffic was moving,
as air quality decreased if cars were queuing or moving slowly. She
stated that the worst year in terms of air quality, would be the
first year the route was opened as people’s behaviour
adapted, but the number of electric vehicles on the road was still
comparatively low. She added that the route was now due to open in
2028/29, but air quality during construction would be worse than
during operation.
Councillor Allen then questioned if Thurrock would be pushing for
local construction companies to work on the route. The Assistant
Director LTC replied that the team were currently in discussion
with HE regarding legacy benefits and construction. She stated that
Thurrock Council had invested roughly £8million into the
local economy with the widening of the A13 scheme, and this
produced a circular economy and social value to the area. She added
that as the LTC scheme was much larger than the A13 widening
project, it could see much more money being introduced to the
economy through local construction workers. Councillor Allen
questioned if Thurrock were also pushing for additional trees to
offset the carbon emissions from the route. The Assistant Director
LTC replied that this was included as part of the mitigation
list.
The Resident Representative stated that as HE were currently
updating the Highways and Transport Assessment, including increased
detail surrounding traffic management, it would present a good
opportunity for Thurrock to add input and get what they required.
The Assistant Director LTC agreed and added that the team were
currently reviewing the DCO, and would provide comment to HE. She
stated that concerns would also be raised during the examination
phase, if the DCO was re-submitted and accepted. She mentioned that
the Council had already had preliminary discussions with HE
surrounding operational hours during construction, and HE were
aware of the issue. She stated that the Council would have to be
reasonable, as HE would need to work weekends and 24/7 in some
areas of tunnel excavation, but were working hard to control
operational hours near population centres.
The Business Representative stated that Tilbury 2 was an accepted
DCO project, which would include a new construction and aggregate
import terminal, and would include everything HE would need to
build the road, which was only 200m away from the tunnel portal. He
stated that this facility would be offered to HE, which would
remove up to 50% of construction traffic from local roads. He added
that this could not be included prior to DCO submission, due to
procurement rules, but would benefit Thurrock as well as
benefitting one of Thurrock’s largest employers.