The Principal Transport & NSIP Project Manager introduced the report and gave a presentation that provided the Committee with an update in respect of the current position with the London Resort Development Consent Order (DCO) application and noted the current timetables of other major infrastructure projects. The presentation can be viewed via the link set out below:

https://democracy.gravesham.gov.uk/documents/b13465/Item%205%20-%20London%20Resort%20Update%20-%20Presentation%20Wednesday%2031-Mar-2021%2019.30%20Strategic%20Environment%20Ca.pdf?T=9

The following points were raised during discussion on this subject:

·         Following a question on the key positive and negative impacts in Gravesham of the London Resort, the officer undertook to send a detailed answer to Members following the meeting if there were any questions that could not be answered immediately given the complex nature of the proposal.

·         There would be pedestrian access to the site via George and Dragon (Pilgrims Way). It was noted that staff would have other access options and the public could use the footpaths to/from the Ferry Terminal even if they did not intend to visit London Resort.

·         It was highlighted that there was no public pedestrian access to the site via Northfleet High Street despite that fact that this approach might have helped the regeneration of this area (staff would be able to enter via Lower Range Road). However, the main pedestrian access to the site was up A226 Galley Hill, Swanscombe which was not a pleasant walk and covered quite a long distance.

·         It was noted that the Council had submitted an initial response to the Planning Inspectorate and the officer confirmed that this had included highlighting the transport implications and the impact on the surrounding road network including staff using local roads etc.  London Resort had submitted transport modelling which Kent County Council and Highways England considered to be lacking in detail.

·         The Committee was advised that the best way to think of application was as if it were an outline planning application. Most of the Resort lay within the area of responsibility for Development Management by Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (EDC), and when the EDC was disbanded, Gravesham and Dartford Borough Council would take over the lead. Until this time the Borough Councils would mainly act as consultees.

·         Members also noted that there was a possible noise disturbance impact in relation to the Tilbury Ferry Terminal for Gravesend residents who lived on the Kent side of the river.

·         The officer highlighted the ability of London Resort DCO to disapply certain aspects related to potential impacts and much remained unknown at this early stage.

·         Members noted that the Borough Council was promoting the use of local businesses during construction of the site and there would be opportunities for businesses to submit tenders. However, there were also some specialist construction works to be undertaken which were not possible to locally source. The Principal Economic Development Officer added that London Resort was prepared to work with the Borough Council on the supply chain approach and there would also be Meet the Buyer events which had worked well in the past.

·         Following a question with regard to effects of the London Resort development on the newly designated and greatly expanded Swanscombe Peninsula Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI).  It was explained that this was a case of the classic tension between nature conservation and economic development, which would be resolved by the Secretary of State in making a decision on the DCO.  Much would depend on the nature of the compensation and mitigation package that was offered.

·         The issue of parking on local roads was raised as parking was already at a premium. Members were advised that a strategy on parking had been produced by the applicant and the documents were with the Development Consent Order Application.   The application assumed a maximum of 10,000 spaces on the site (including Tilbury) together with the use of public transport – buses, trains and ferries.  The CPZ had been considered, but this was ultimately in the control of local authorities. It was noted that there was nothing in the document with regard to the enhancement of Northfleet railway station.

·         Following a question on funding, the Chair noted that this detail was not yet available although it was good to see the scheme moving forward. He advised that there would be a further Member Briefing on this subject once more information became available.

·         The need for construction workers for the London Resort would overlap with the Lower Thames Crossing and questions had been raised with regard to staff accommodation and how staff would travel to the sites. There had been talk by London Resort of using cruise ships moored on the Thames as temporary accommodation. It was also hoped to use the river as a means of transporting construction materials.

The Assistant Director (Planning) advised that when the Planning Inspectorate published the initial Representations the Committee would receive a link to these documents.

Resolved that the report be noted.