Back to list The London Resort

Representation by Kent Wildlife Trust (Kent Wildlife Trust)

Date submitted
31 March 2021
Submitted by
Non-statutory organisations
  1. Introduction Kent Wildlife Trust (KWT) engaged with the London Resort Company Holdings (“the applicant”) and their agents prior to DCO submission with a focus on impacts to biodiversity, submitting extensive written feedback on the consultation documents. In a joint letter regarding the adequacy of consultation, we highlighted the shortcomings in this consultation process and lack of detailed consultation with relevant environmental organisations. Whilst efforts were made to address some of our concerns, there are a number of significant outstanding issues. Whilst we welcome the opportunity to work with the applicant to try to resolve these issues, we must advise that due to the nature of our concerns it is unlikely that this will be achievable within the existing order limits. We wish to register as an interested party for the examination, and list our key concerns below. 2. Impacts to Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI On the 11th March 2021, Natural England enlarged Bakers Hole SSSI, under section 28C (Enlargement) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The enlarged site is now known as the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI. The SSSI has been notified on the basis of its special interest for geology, vascular plants, invertebrates and breeding birds. The species notified as special interest features depend on a complex mosaic of estuarine habitats and Open Mosaic Habitat on Previously Developed Land (OMHPDL), including grassland, scrub, wetlands, floodplain grazing marsh and saltmarsh. The order limits lie almost entirely within the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI, and we estimate that this scheme will result in the direct loss of in excess of 100ha of SSSI land, equating to the loss of almost 40% of the SSSI. This percentage does not account for further degradation of remaining habitats due to hydrological changes, light and noise pollution, inappropriate management and fragmentation. Loss of SSSI on this scale would be unprecedented. KWT strongly believe that this application and the associated Environmental Statement must be reviewed in light of the SSSI designation, and a commitment to no loss or damage to SSSI land must be made. On this basis, it is our view that the Swanscombe Peninsula is not an appropriate site for development. The approval of this scheme would set a dangerous precedent and on this basis the development should not be permitted in this location. 3. Assessment of alternatives The assessment of alternative sites, undertaken in 2011-2012, is inaccurate with regards to the criteria of “land use” and “environmental constraints”. The assessment is 10 years out of date and does not account for extant environmental constraints, including; the sites functional linkage to the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar and Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar, the Swanscombe Marine Conservation Zone (MCZ), the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI and Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs) including Botany Marsh. We strongly believe that an accurate assessment of alternatives would clearly demonstrate that the Swanscombe Peninsula is not the most suitable location for this development. The continued use of the term “brownfield” by the applicant to describe the site appears to be an attempt to justify the suitability of the site for development. The Swanscombe Peninsula does not meet the definition of brownfield as defined by the NPPF, and is classified as an extensive area of OMHPDL. The industrial past of the site, and subsequent re-colonisation by wildlife provides many of the special interest features of the SSSI. 4. Assessment of baseline condition We have numerous concerns relating to the assessment of the ecological baseline and to the findings of the impact assessments. Firstly, it is not appropriate to separate priority habitats, such as OMHPDL, into its component habitat types. OMHPDL is described as a mosaic of a wide variety of habitat types including bare ground, flower-rich grassland and scattered scrub (up to 10-15% cover). It is noted that the applicant has made efforts to identify the extent of OMHPDL, however we believe this priority habitat is still underrepresented. This results in an underestimation of the habitat baseline condition and has implications relating to proposed mitigation and compensation. Similar concerns apply to the applicant’s assessment of the extent of Coastal Floodplain Grazing Marsh (CFGM) priority habitat. The applicant continues to under value the importance of habitats and species on site. Habitats and species included within the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI designation, such as OMHPDL, CFGM and the breeding bird assemblage should be classified as being of national importance. Further, we raise concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of species surveys, including for dormouse, resulting in an incomplete baseline. KWT will work with the applicant and the inspector to ensure that the biodiversity value of the site is properly represented. An accurate assessment of the ecological baseline is essential in informing the scale of impacts and necessary avoidance and mitigation measures. The above represent examples and we will provide a complete list of these concerns through the examination. 5. Assessment of impacts We consider that that impacts have been underestimated on numerous occasions, both during the pre- and post-mitigation assessments. For example, ‘functional linkage’ refers to the important role that land beyond the boundary of a European site fulfils in terms of ecologically supporting the populations for which the site was designated or classified. Loss of habitat on the Swanscome Peninsula will likely have significant effects on international designated sites, thus being significant at an international level, as opposed to regionally important as concluded by the applicant. The same methodology applies to impacts relating to nationally designated sites, including SSSIs and MCZs, where loss or damage would be significant at the national level. We have further concerns regarding the assessment of the magnitude of impact to LWS. A significant example of the underestimation of the scale of impacts relates to the direct loss of, and damage of, populations of nationally scarce plants. These impacts have been assessed as only being significant at either a regional, local or district level. The assemblage of nationally scarce plants has been included as a qualifying feature in the SSSI, and their loss or damage would be significant at a national level. Further the individual assessment of each component habitat of OMHPDL, and resulting downgrading importance of each individual habitat type, is not conducive to a proper assessment of impacts. This accounts for the vast majority of habitats listed. Loss or damage of OMHPDL is significant at nationally level, due to its fundamental role in supporting qualifying features of the SSSI. We have concerns regarding the assessment of the magnitude and significance of impacts to protected and notable species. Loss or disturbance of habitat for internationally important wintering waterfowl is significant at the international level. Impacts to the nationally important invertebrate assemblage, which is a qualifying feature of the SSSI is significant at a national level. The development will result in substantial loss of suitable habitat for invertebrates, and threatens the local extinction of the distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), which is only known to one other site in the UK. The above provide examples of our concerns. KWT have further concerns relating to the assessment of impacts to designated sites, habitats and species which will be detailed through the examination process. 6. Biodiversity net gain Principle 4 of Natural England’s Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) user guide states that “The metric focuses on widespread species and typical habitats. Area based habitats are considered a suitable proxy for widespread species found in typical examples of different habitat types. - Protected and locally important species needs are not considered through the metric, - Impacts on protected (e.g. SSSIs) and irreplaceable habitats are not adequately measured by this metric, and will likely require separate consideration.” Paragraph 1575 of the Environment Bill explanatory notes states that “it is generally agreed in practice that development cannot claim biodiversity net gain in cases when development results in land take from statutory protected sites. […] the biodiversity net gain requirement for development on such sites is additional to any existing legal or policy requirements for statutory protected areas and their features.” On the basis of the designation of Swanscome Peninsula SSSI it is not appropriate to apply BNG to this application to justify its environmental credentials. Aside from our comments above, we will continue to engage with the applicant’s net gain assessment. We are pleased to note that the applicant has revised their biodiversity baseline, in excess of doubling the number of units lost to 829.98, representing almost a 25% loss. However, we are still of the opinion that biodiversity losses continue to be under represented, and further assessment is required. Additionally, the applicant’s use of the Defra Metric to model scenarios for offsite compensation attempts to compensate for loss of priority habitat mosaics by separating habitats into non-priority habitat component parts. This appears to be an attempt to by-pass the higher risk multipliers applied to recreating higher value habitat in a way that goes against the intentions of the metric to disincentivise loss of priority habitat. It also results in down-trading of priority habitats for areas of medium distinctiveness habitat, which is explicitly against the rules of the metric. If the metric were to be applied correctly, then a far greater area of land will be required to achieve a net gain. Calculations should exclude any species specific compensation for negative impacts on legislatively protected species. 7. Mitigation and compensation It is our belief that the mitigation hierarchy has not been applied throughout the Environmental Statement. Aside from our comments regarding the unsuitability of the Swanscombe Pensinsula for development, we will continue to work with the applicant on their proposed mitigation and compensation. We continue to have concerns regarding the suitability of onsite mitigation, including hydrological changes to the site and mitigation for disturbance of habitats and species. It is noted that the final offsite mitigation package has not yet been secured and therefore our comments are based on the general principles for mitigation. Whilst this is not a unique situation, it is concerning that the feasibility of securing a suitable mitigation package has not been assessed. As advised above, priority habitat should be compensated for on a like-for-like basis, and it is not appropriate to compensate for loss of priority habitat through delivery of lower value component parts in isolation. There has been a lack of commitment by the applicant to adequately compensate for loss of OMHPDL and associated habitats supporting invertebrate communities. It should be noted that KWT consider OMHPDL to be effectively irreplaceable and therefore should not be lost to development. Any off site compensation should be located outside nationally and internationally designated areas where maintaining good condition is an obligation under relevant legislation and are therefore inapplicable as habitat compensation and biodiversity net gain receptor sites. 8. Additional issues In addition to the issues mentioned above, we raise concerns regarding the following: - Direct and indirect impacts to functionally linked land to the Thames Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar and Medway Estuary and Marshes SPA/Ramsar, to the Swanscombe MCZ, to LWSs and to ancient woodland along the transport corridor. - Direct and indirect impacts to mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates due to habitat loss, fragmentation, damage and disturbance. - The threat of the local extinction of the distinguished jumping spider (Attulus distinguendus), found at only one other location in the UK. - We maintain that this scheme is likely to exacerbating the climate crisis. The applicant must demonstrate the carbon neutrality of the scheme, including the sourcing and transporting of all materials. This is only likely to be possible through a combined approach to carbon reduction and carbon offsetting, with substantial commitments to habitat creation additional to necessary mitigation. - We continue to be concerned about the cumulative impacts of the London Resort, particularly given the high level of development pressure in the Thames Gateway area. - The proposed development undermines the government’s commitments to natures recovery, set out within their 25 Year Environment Plan, nor to the commitment to protect 30% of the UK’s land for nature. The SSSI network and priority habitats must underpin the government’s approach to halting biodiversity declines. 9. Issues of joint concern Buglife, CPRE Kent, KWT and the RSPB will work together during the Examination on issues of joint concern including impacts on protected species and the Swanscombe Peninsula SSSI (including SSSI land take, hydrological impacts, noise & light pollution and recreational impacts). This will include where appropriate joint submissions or support for each other’s positions to minimise repetition and save Examination time. For now, it should be noted that KWT is generally supportive of the other issues raised in the Relevant Representations by our conservation partners. KWT reserves the right to add to/amend its position should new information be made available by the applicant or other Interested Parties.