Agenda item
Task Force Priorities List
Minutes:
The Assistant Director LTC
stated this was a standing item which had been requested by
Councillor Tom Kelly to keep sight of the Task Force priorities.
She stated this document was a pre-cursor to the Mitigation
Schedule. She then drew the Task Force’s attention to areas
of the Priorities List which had been populated by HE in sections
1a (ii), 1a (iv), 1d, 2b (ii) and 7e.
She ran through the changes which included:
1a (ii): HE had clarified that during the construction phase 900
construction workers would be needed at peak construction times in
Thurrock. HE had stated jobs would grow as journey times would
decrease, which would increase labour markets and help
businesses.
1a (iv): HE had stated that a crossing
at Canvey Island had been discounted in 2009 as it did not meet
scheme objectives and HE could not justify it.
1d: HE had clarified they would be using local contractors as the
PIN notice had been published last week, which could be shared with
the Task Force and Thurrock Business Board.
2b (ii): Thurrock Council had now agreed a Planning Performance
Agreement (PPA) with HE that could recover costs in terms of
officer resources, and this had been backdated to September
2018.
7e: A group had been set-up regarding the HIA which had met in
November 2018 and January 2019, and would continue to meet
quarterly to discuss the Health Impact Assessment, as the Assistant
Director LTC believed that work was not progressing quickly
enough.
Councillor Allen asked for clarification regarding 1a (ii) as
although 900 workers were needed for the construction phase, HE had
put out to EU tender, and asked if local construction workers could
receive these jobs. The Assistant Director LTC clarified that due
to the scale of the project, and procurement rules, it had to go to
EU tender. She stated that the tenders would be tiered, so both
larger and smaller contractors could receive business. She added
that through the DCO process, Thurrock Council wanted to ensure a
certain amount of local goods and contractors were used on the
project.
The Chair stated that at 1a (ii) part of the initial scheme had
included a Tilbury Link Road to connect the docks. He stated that
he remained opposed to the LTC, but had felt the Tilbury Link Road
may have bought benefit. The HE Development Director replied that
when HE had spoken to Thurrock businesses, the majority of feedback
contained frustration at the Dartford Crossing. He stated that
there was not the infrastructure to cope with a Tilbury Link Road,
and if it was included in the scheme it could impact upon local
roads. He added that HE were working with the Department for
Transport and other partners to work on a different concept to
connect the Port of Tilbury, either during or after the LTC had
been built. The Assistant Director LTC replied that Thurrock needed
access to the cordoned model to be able to analyse whether the
Tilbury Link Road would affect the local road network. The
Vice-Chair asked if the Tilbury Link Road had been removed due to
cost, as it had been too expensive. The HE Development Director
replied that if the LTC was connected to the local road network and
the dock area, it would cause an increase in traffic. He added that
HE wanted to collaborate with Thurrock and the Port of Tilbury to
work with the port’s expansion and the Local Plan. He added
that they were looking at a variety of options, but in its current
guise, the Tilbury Link Road would not fit in with the scheme. The
Business Representative stated that he felt the Tilbury Link Road
should be included in the scheme, and had been removed due to cost.
He added that he felt it would only cost 1-2% of the
£6billion total to add the Tilbury Link Road, which seemed
insignificant. He also stated that the Port was currently
submitting a DCO to expand by 152 acres. Councillor Allen
reaffirmed his opposition to the scheme, but felt if it went ahead
then HE should get it right by design. He felt is should be
‘value for health’ rather than value for money. The HE
Development Director replied that they were not choosing the
cheapest option, as the cheapest option would be a bridge, but HE
were mitigating the scheme and would ensure there was adequate
consultation.
The Chair stated that he had met with the Transportation
Development Manager during the Congestion Task Force to discuss
design elements and the use of a bridge. The Transportation
Development Manager stated they had discussed the HE scheme to
place a wind buffer system along the Dartford Crossing, as there
was a trigger point when it became too windy and the bridge had to
close. He stated that HE had done the academic work regarding the
proposed wind buffer system to reduce closures, but Thurrock had
not received much update from this and did not currently know the
timescales. The Resident Representative commented that HE had not
improved the Dartford Crossing for some time, and there had been no
discussion on ways to improve the existing tunnel, such as removing
the need to shut down when tankers passed through. She felt it was
disappointing as a resident that HE had not shown more of an effort
to work on problems at Dartford. She asked if HE could make major
improvements at Dartford, rather than building a new crossing. The
HE Development Director replied that the Dartford Crossing did not
meet the right safety specifications to allow tankers to pass
through unescorted, and it would never meet those specifications.
He added that they had done lots of work regarding this, but HE
were working to improve Dartford, such as updating the traffic
management systems; reducing recovery times; and installing the new
Dart Charge system. He commented that Option A of the LTC had been
to improve the Dartford Crossing, but this had been ruled out in
favour of Option C, as Option C had increased the return on value
for traffic times.
The Chair reiterated the point that the new crossing would be a
toll road, so all monies spent would be returned to HE. Councillor Allen again commented that he felt HE
were too focussed on money, and had not considered the impact of
the road on resident’s health, the environment and ecology.
The TCAG Representative stated that HE had saved £15million
at Dartford by not installing a wind buffer, and did not want the
same problems to occur at the LTC.
Supporting documents: