Minutes:
The Highways England (HE) Development Director
introduced the briefing note and stated that there had been high
levels of engagement with Thurrock Council, including numerous
technical workshops. He added that the HE community ‘Chatty
Van’ had also received good levels of engagement from the
public, and the local supply chain event that had been held had
received over 200 visitors. He stated that HE still planned for
Development Consent Order (DCO) submission in 2020, and they had
now finished collating consultation responses, which would go on to
shape the DCO proposal. He also clarified that HE were considering
another round of consultation, but this would be communicated to
Thurrock when agreed and would reflect the intensity of the next
stage of proposals. The HE Development Director mentioned that a
new Facebook page would be launching on 19 December 2019 and would
be updated monthly to keep the public up-to-date with the latest
developments.
The HE Development Director moved onto discuss the briefing paper
and areas for cut and cover along the route. He stated that the
proposal allowed for small sections of cut and cover in Thurrock,
mainly at the tunnel entrance and at the junction of the A13. He
clarified that although cut and cover did have some benefits to air
quality and noise reduction, it was restricted in Thurrock by the
location of junctions and ground conditions. He described
Thurrock’s hydrology, as there was lots of purge water and
groundwater to the south of the borough, and if this was disturbed
it would have a large environmental impact. He also described how,
to the north of the borough, the ground became boggy and marshy due
to the Mardyke Valley, which would make it difficult to include cut
and cover as deep excavation and pilings would be needed. The HE
Development Director also described the two large curves that were
included in the proposed route, and would make it difficult to
include cut and cover, as drivers needed clear forward facing
visibility and this would not be achievable if the route was in a
tunnel. He clarified that if the route were in a tunnel for these
sections, the road would need to be twice as wide, which would
increase the land needed and the footprint of construction works.
He added that it would also increase the construction schedule and
the delays associated with this.
The Chair opened debate and stated that he represented the town of
Chadwell St Mary, where the proposed route would come very close to
resident’s homes. He understood that although cut and cover
could not be provided along the entire route, he felt that it could
be used in locations close to urban areas to protect residents. He
felt that as the route would be in use for over 100 years, it
should be right by design and include the correct levels of
coverage and mitigation. The HE Development Director replied that
HE were considering non-motorised users across the borough and
would be looking at routes that crossed the LTC in detail. He added
that HE were also working to mitigate environmental impacts by
trying to connect bio-diversity and non-motorised users. He stated
that any changes made would be bought back to the Task Force in the
New Year. The Chair added that residents of Chadwell St Mary
already suffered from increased rates of COPD, which would only get
worse if proper mitigation was not used along the route. The HE
Development Director added that HE would consider pinch points such
as communities in Chadwell St Mary, particularly along Brentwood
Road, which were close to the route. He explained that small
tunnels of 500-600m reduced air quality at the tunnel entrance and
exits, which could only be slightly mitigated using ventilation
stacks. He explained it was often better to use open cut and cover
which would comparatively improve the air quality at a distance of
up to 50m away from the road.
Councillor Shinnick asked for clarification on where cut and cover
would be placed along the route. The HE Development Director
responded that in current proposals there would be 400m of cut and
cover on the shore of the Thames and at the junction of the A13. He
stated that this issue was still up for discussion and HE were
looking at a range of solutions. He added that HE’s proposals
would be rigorously tested against the National Policy Statement by
external regulatory bodies. He added that on the maps provided at
Appendix 1, the green sections outlined areas of planting schemes
or landscaping, which would hide the route and provide some
environmental mitigation.
The Resident Representative questioned the changes to the route,
and asked how much time was left until DCO submission. The HE
Development Director replied that the plans provided at Appendix 1
were the same as those provided at statutory consultation, and if
any significant changes were proposed then another round of
statutory consultation would occur. He then outlined the DCO
submission process and highlighted that DCO would be submitted to
the Planning Inspectorate by summer 2020. He explained that the
Planning Inspectorate would then have one month to ensure that the
documentation and submission were correct, before spending 3-5
months hearing representations from stakeholders such as Thurrock
Council, Heritage England and the LTC Task Force. He explained that
this process would run until approximately the end of 2020, and
only at this point would the examination phase begin. He described
the examination phase and highlighted that at this stage individual
representations would be heard, as well as representations from
Thurrock Council, and would last for six months. He described how
this was to ensure the impact of the scheme had been mitigated
against, and due diligence had been paid. He then described how at
the end of examination phase, the Planning Inspectorate had three
months to judge the proposal, and if judged acceptable it would be
sent to the Secretary of State who then had three months to decide
if it should go ahead. The Assistant Director LTC added that once
the DCO had been submitted, Thurrock’s opportunity to
influence the design was largely gone, as no major changes would be
made. She stated that at the examination phase, the scheme was more
likely to be refused than have major changes implemented, but 97%
of schemes such as these were successful.
The TCAG Representative stated that she felt HE were only
considering cut and cover as a cost issue, and felt you could not
put a cost on people’s lives. She also felt that if the route
was not mitigated properly then more residents would become ill and
suffer health problems, which would increase the bill for the NHS.
The Thurrock Business Board Representative then asked how much
weight was being given to developments in the proposed Local Plan,
and how close the route would come to those potential developments.
The Assistant Director LTC replied that as the Local Plan had not
been agreed upon, HE did not have to consider it. She added that
numerous conversations had been held between Thurrock and HE, and
officers were looking to work together to ensure that areas for
development were not precluded due to the LTC. She also discussed
how HE only had to have regard for the current Local Plan.
The Thurrock Business Board Representative asked what the current
situation was regarding the proposed Rest and Service Area (RaSA),
as he felt the site should be moved away from East Tilbury. The HE
Development Director replied that responses from the statutory
consultation highlighted local people’s concern for the
proposed location of the RaSA, and stated that if the decision was
made for it to be moved, it would go back to statutory
consultation. The Chair suggested an area for the proposed RaSA on
the M25 near the Brentwood junction, as it was already
‘spoiled’ land, and was not near any residential sites.
The Assistant Director LTC highlighted that it was not HE’s
role to identify locations, as these were developed by the
market.
Councillor Jefferies voiced his disappointment that more cut and
cover could not be provided along the route, and felt that cut and
cover should be provided in those areas close to residential homes
such as Ockendon and Chadwell St Mary. The HE Development Director
replied that HE wanted to talk locally about cut and cover, but the
scheme had to be aligned with the budget from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer.
Councillor Spillman arrived 18.35
The Chair listed areas where he felt cut and cover should be
included on the route, such as Chadwell St Mary, Ockendon and south
Grays, and used the examples of tunnels along the M25 that had
cricket pitches on them. He asked HE to go back and look at these
areas to ensure that the residents were protected, particularly
those within 600m of the route.
Councillor Spillman felt that the Council had been working in a
cross-party manner on the LTC and Local Plan to ensure that air
pollution was reduced across the borough, and highlighted a motion
that had recently been raised at Full Council regarding the
reduction of air pollutants. He felt this was important as Thurrock
already had an increased level of air pollution. He felt that the
scheme in its current form did not benefit the wider area or the
residents of Thurrock, and asked HE to take this into
consideration.
The Thurrock Business Board Representative questioned whether HE
had considered the existing alignment, and whether it would be
possible to cover the route at ground level using excess spoil from
the boring of the tunnel. The HE Development Director replied that
this option had been considered, but HE would go back and look in
detail at this option where existing routes crossed the LTC. He
added that lots of work would be done to ensure spoil would be used
on landscaping around the LTC, and would take examples of best
practice from Thurrock’s work on the A13 widening
scheme.
The Chair summarised and asked when HE would return to the Task
Force with new ideas and updates. The HE Development Director
replied that due to the election, activity had decreased, but this
would now pick up again and announcements would start being made in
the New Year. He felt that by February, HE would be able to come
back to the Task Force with updates.
Highways England left – 18.47
The Assistant Director LTC highlighted that a bi-monthly meeting
was held between the HE CEO, HE Complex Infrastructure Manager,
Thurrock’s CEO, Thurrock’s Director of Place and
herself to ensure that HE were taking Thurrock into consideration,
as well as meetings between HE, the Leader and relevant Portfolio
Holder. Councillor Jefferies asked if the CEO of HE could be
invited to February’s meeting of the Task Force, and the
Assistant Director LTC and the Chair agreed this.
The TCAG Representative asked if a new Project Director had been
appointed to the LTC, and the Assistant Director LTC replied in the
negative. Councillor Jefferies asked if the Task Force could see
the letter that was sent to the Secretary of State, and the
accompanying reply as purdah had now finished. He also asked if the
Task Force could write a letter to the Transport Select Committee
to be able to lobby them directly. The Assistant Director LTC
replied that she would distribute the Secretary of State letter,
and would write to the Transport Select Committee towards the end
of January, as this fell in line with another piece of work
currently being completed. Councillor Jefferies also highlighted
that individuals and residents groups could write to the Transport
Select Committee. The Thurrock Business Board felt this was a good
idea, and highlighted that HE had now agreed to set up a supply
chain school to allow local businesses to get funding for the
construction of the LTC.
The TCAG Representative highlighted the levels of PM2.5 in
Thurrock, and described how this had been the focus of many local
media reports, as Thurrock was 34th worst in the
country. She described how the route would fail if the level of
PM2.5 were tested against World Health Organization (WHO)
guidelines, and asked if a press release could be made from the
Council that highlighted this. The Assistant Director LTC replied
that although this did not fall under her remit, she would discuss
with the environmental health and communications teams.
Supporting documents: