Back to list The London Resort

Representation by MTD Coln Industrial Limited (MTD Coln Industrial Limited )

Date submitted
30 March 2021
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. We act as Town Planning consultants to MTD Coln Industrial Limited (“MTD”) in relation to the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) application by London Resort Holdings (“LRH” or “the Applicant”). MTD is the freehold owner of the part of the Application Site known as the Kent Kraft Industrial Estate, Northfleet identified on the Land Plans as Plots 89-102 (“the Site” / “KKIE”). 2. Due to the effect of the Proposed Development on the Site and MTD’s interests, MTD objects to the Application and wishes to register as an Interested Party in the forthcoming Examination. This Statement outlines the basis of MTD’s objection as its Relevant Representation (“RR”). 3. This RR has been prepared jointly and with the input of the following as joint advisors to MTD: • Dentons: Planning & Compulsory Purchase Lawyers; and • CBRE: Compulsory Purchase Surveyors. The Site 4. The Site is just over 1 acre, located 1km northeast of the centre of Swanscombe. The Site can be broadly split into three industrial / warehouse units on the south side of Lower Road which forms the only access and link to the wider highway network. This is accessed from the south via the A226 (Galley Hill Road) which runs to the south of the Site. 5. The Site is occupied by 12 tenants for light industrial, storage and distribution and trade counter uses, many of whom are long term occupiers of the Estate. It is a significant and important local source of employment and scarce industrial logistics land close to the strategic road network (M2, M25 and beyond). The Estate and wider area is estimated to employ over 2,500 people in around 1,400 businesses. 6. MTD acquired the KKIE on 10th January 2020 and was a Category 2 party when the fourth consultation took place in June 2020, although MTD was not notified by the Applicant as a Category 2 owner at this stage. MTD was given a presentation by the Applicant on 23rd November 2020 and were afforded an additional period to submit a consultation response prior to the submission of the application. This was submitted on 22nd December 2020. None of the recommendations in that representation were addressed in the Application. 7. MTD has a long-term business plan for the Site which it has already started to implement. MTD wishes to hold and develop its position with the Site to promote both the investment and the tenants’ interests in light of the substantial and increasing demand for industrial and logistics facilities in this area. Such an objective is entirely consistent with the Site’s position and designation as an Employment Area in the Dartford Local Plan and the emerging Local Plan (Regulation 19 Version, February 2021). 8. KKIE is in the south eastern corner of the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) boundary. The Proposed Development as presented in the Application shows that the entirety of KKIE will be removed and redeveloped as is identified in the Parameter Plans (see for example Drawing Reference: LR-PL-APT-ILP-2.19.2 & LR-PL-APT-ILP-2.19.2A). This will be replaced with the Back of House area for Gate 1 of the scheme. 9. At present, there is no agreement in place between MTD and the Applicant for acquisition of the Site. The Applicant has made no effort to acquire the Site by private treaty (other than through the publication of the London Resort Premium) nor engage with MTD on blight/ mitigation and relocation arrangements. Representation Inadequate Assessment of Alternatives 10. The Proposed Development does not benefit from a Development Plan allocation or National Policy Statement support. It is contrary to the Development Plan objectives in relation to the KKIE. It promotes a scale of development that will have profound effects on a significant number of existing businesses without a level of information on deliverability or impact mitigation proportionate to that scale of impact. 11. The Proposed Development will result in the complete removal / redevelopment of the Kent Kraft Industrial Estate. The Environmental Statement ("ES") recognises that the impacts will be major (adverse) significant without mitigation (ES 7.247) including on MTD and its tenants’ interests and businesses. This includes blight on investment, substantial business losses in terms of investment and jobs and local industrial land supply. 12. Given the scale of these effects, avoidance, minimisation and mitigation are essential. The ES is deficient for the purposes of regulation 14(2) of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017: (1) The assessment the alternative options either at all in some cases or at a level of detail proportionate to the scale and significance of these effects including the required comparison of effects. The detailed rationale, including financial modelling and alternative siting (including use of the riverside area) are not provided; (2) The analysis of effects is understated (including, for example, multiplier effects from loss of jobs, specialist supply chains and clustering); (3) The mitigation relied on (ES Table 7.41) is unspecified and wholly inadequate given the nature of the proposed displacement. The Applicant has not prepared or engaged on any form of relocation strategy for KKIE (despite apparent, but unclear, consideration of the need for this in relation to the Manor Way Business Park (ES 4.38)). Basis of the Acquisition and the Compulsory Purchase Order 13. MTD objects to the land acquisition provisions of the DCO based on the following: (i) The powers are a disproportionate and unjustified interference with MTD's rights for the purposes of Section 122 Planning Act 2008 and its ECHR (Article 1) rights given (a) the inadequate compensation arrangements provided for by LRH (b) the nature of the blight caused by the DCO and the inadequacy of the LRH compensation arrangements in relation to it (c) the excessive nature of the temporary possession powers (article 31) in light of the intended approach to deferred vesting (see Statement of Reasons (“SoR”) 6.23 and 6.75) and lack of timing, building protection, advance payment or other safeguards in the DCO drafting. (ii) LRH has not evidenced a compelling case for authorisation of compulsory purchase given: (a) the nature of the project and the affected areas; (b) the scale of unmitigated blight that will be caused by the powers in the circumstances including the absence of any relocation strategy; (c) the inadequacy of the submitted Funding Statement (“FS”), including in relation to the claim at FS 4.6; (d) the inadequate efforts to avoid the use of expropriatory powers through negotiations with affected owners (including the inadequacy of the published London Resort Premium (“LRP”) offer and absence of any decant or relocation strategy). The SoR claims hesitancy to engage by affected parties but illustrates how the Option / LRP proposal terms create an unreasonable and disproportionate burden on affected parties (see SoR 7.19/7.20) which are exacerbated by the DCO drafting. Hearings 14. MTD wishes to be registered as an Interested Party. MTD has a particular interest in attending the following to address the above issues: (i) Any Issue Specific Hearings of relevance. (ii) Compulsory Acquisition Hearings. (iii) Development Consent Order Hearings. 15. We expect the Applicant to respond in full to the shortcomings of the submitted Application as detailed above including detailed feasibility and viability evidence to provide a compelling case for scale of the impacts generated by the inclusion of the Site, the deprivation of MTD of its interest and the unmitigated imposition of blight.