Representation by Save Crossness Nature Reserve Campaign Group (Save Crossness Nature Reserve Campaign Group)
- Date submitted
- 12 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
The Save Crossness Nature Reserve Campaign group (SCNRC) is made up of local residents, bird watchers, local campaigners and environmentalists, many of whom are members of the Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve. The SCNRC group is represented by Laurence Pinturault for the purpose of this entry. Laurence Pinturault has also made a separate entry as an individual. We object to Cory’s proposals on the following grounds; • Loss of land designated as Local Nature Reserve, Metropolitan Open Land, SINC and Open Space is an unacceptable harm. o These all have strong protections under local, London and national policy. o Cory have made up a new definition – Accessible Open Land – to suit their motives, but this is not a term recognized in planning policy and is not relevant. The above policy designations do not make reference to the land having to be publicly accessible. In any event, in their Special Category Land Plan: 2.8 document, Cory have failed to capture and have understated what areas are publicly accessible. The ‘protected area’ is accessible to all Friends of Crossness Nature Reserve. To become a Friend is free and simple, therefore the protected area is publicly accessible. • Cory cite Bexley Local Plan policy DP17, which looks at publicly accessible open space, but this is a specific policy about health and less relevant. o The value of the land goes beyond access. The habitat value is in fact improved and protected by the lack of access. The public benefit comes from being surrounded by the nature. • The harm to the remaining LNR and SINC land is also unacceptable. o There is not enough detail or certainty about how the land will be adequately maintained in Cory’s ownership. Thames Water’s management abilities will be impeded by no longer owning the LNR land. o The impact on habitats has not been properly assessed. Furthermore, the habitat assessment understates the impact: the magnitude should be considered high, and should often have national importance, resulting in a major to moderate effect. o Cory is relying on the potential benefits to the local heat network, but this was promised in relation to Riverside1 and Riverside2 and was never delivered. This benefit must be discounted from the balance. • The mitigation hierarchy has not been applied. o This is a requirement under EN-1. The presumption in favour of CNP only applies once the mitigation hierarchy has been met. Therefore, Cory cannot rely on the presumption here – and they are incorrect to say this is the “starting point” for the Secretary of State’s assessment. o Cory have not properly considered alternative sites to avoid the ecological harm caused by building on the LNR / MOL / SINC land. • Cory’s documents repeatedly suggest the chosen development is the most efficient within the South Zone – but this is misleading as it overlooks comparisons to potential development in other Zones. • They failed to explore in detail development on the other Zones. Cory failed to explore splitting the carbon capture plants onto two different sites, as they confirmed was possible – for example, this might allow development split across the West and East Zones, or North and East Zones. • In particular, Cory were too quick to rule out development in the East Zone area. Cory suggested development on this site does not meet the optioneering principles, but in reality, most of them are met (to the same level as, or better than, development in the South Zone). Furthermore, the mitigation hierarchy requires Cory to place the principle of avoiding environmental harm above other principles, such as saving costs. Cory have not demonstrated they have done so. Cory only looked at one small area in the East Zone, whereas they did extensive reviews of the South Zone – this imbalanced approach suggests a predetermined conclusion from the outset. It appears Cory want to avoid their duties in order to save costs. • Cory are overlooking the designation of the East Zone as SIL, which the Bexley Local Plan states “will be intensified where possible to optimise the use of this land for appropriate business uses, including waste facilities and wharves”. This allocation arose after Lidl and Iron Mountain were already on-site – meaning the planning intention was for development like this to go in the East Zone regardless of the cost of relocation of existing businesses. • The biodiversity harm is also unacceptable. o The existing baseline has not been properly assessed: • Firstly, the ecological surveys were carried out during construction of Riverside 2, which of course will have a temporary increased impact on habitats. For example, Cory have relied on this to note that certain birds, such as ground-nesting Lapwing in the West Paddock, have not nested on the nature reserve for a couple years. This understates the inherent biodiversity quality of the site once construction is complete. The baseline needs to account for this and draw on data from before construction. • The surveys are limited and undertaken at inappropriate times, leading to skewed results. For instance, the only bat detector positioned on the LNR (the other two were on Norman Road Field), was positioned in East Paddock, close to the Riverside 2 construction. The resulting noise, disturbance and light pollution would have reduced bat activity and skewed the data. The reptile surveys were not carried out throughout the recognised March-October survey season and only limited refugia was put out on the eastern edge of East Paddock where there is already significant disturbance. The surveys – and indeed the redline boundary – excludes the Protected Area of the reserve, again skewing results. It was inappropriate to rule out the protected area as we believe this area has high biodiversity value and should have been included in the surveys. In addition, although within the red line boundary, the Island Field Lagoons do not seem to be included in the Cory surveys. They are a wetland with breeding and wintering birds. • There are concerns over pollution to ecologically rich ditches from run offs from the CCS plant. • The intensity of grazing has been overstated to suggest lower biodiversity value – noting this land was not properly surveyed so being based on assumptions. Furthermore, Cory are suggesting the horses displaced from the paddocks graze on the remaining nature reserve land – by Cory’s own standards, this risks reducing biodiversity quality on this other land. o Cory are inappropriately overlooking the existing requirements on Norman Road Field to mitigate habitat loss. They suggest that “some 20 years has passed since the works were undertaken and limited management of the area has been implemented over that time” – but that is a matter of proper enforcement. The baseline should assume these obligations are being met. Otherwise, the current owner is incentivised to ignore their requirements in order to free up the land to be considered again for BNG / habitat improvement. This is also an inappropriate double-counting. o Cory’s proposed biodiversity improvements on the Norman Road Field risk merely replacing existing biodiversity with new ones – this is not an improvement. o Cory relies heavily on improvement to the BNG Opportunity Area, but the baseline for this (including the disused golf course) and the detail of what improvements are proposed is missing. The existing biodiversity value is high, with this land having been left to rewild since the closure of the golf course. There is no evidence that Cory can achieve extensive biodiversity improvements on this land. o Cory’s proposals to increase public access will create a risk of biodiversity harm from fracturing of green space and human intervention. • Townscape and Visual impacts o The townscape and visual impact is understated. Cory’s documents note the various harms but then conclude that the development is “not damaging” because they are local. This is an incorrect application of the policy test. o Because Cory have underestimated the amount of publicly accessible land, they have also underestimated the visual impact harm. o The intensive impact to the LNR, which is incredibly sensitive to such impact given its goal of providing tranquil open space, needs to be given greater weight. • Section 127 prevents compulsory purchase of statutory undertakers’ land unless that land can be purchased and replaced without serious detriment to the carrying out of the undertaking or can be purchased and replaced by other land (owned by or available to be acquired by the undertaker) without serious detriment to the carrying out of the undertaking. o Thames Water own the land as statutory undertakers. They are under obligations under a s106 agreement to maintain and enhance the nature reserve. They undertake statutory duties to further conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and conservation of flora and fauna (s3 Water Industry Act 1991), and to have regard conserving biodiversity (s40 Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006). • It is irrelevant whether Thames Water hold the land solely for the s106, as Cory argues. In any event, we believe the land is solely held for the above purposes. o Thames Water do not want to enter into a tripartite agreement and their ability to carry out their statutory undertaking function would suffer serious detriment should Cory acquire their land. o Neither of the two s127 conditions apply, as there is not other land that can be acquired by Thames Water to carry out this specific function, especially when the unique status of the nature reserve land is taken into account. o Therefore s127 prevents the acquisition of the land. o Cory’s response – that the acquisition nullifies the s106 agreement obligation – does not adequately respond to this issue. This is a circular argument that clearly defeats the purpose of the s127. • The impact on the graziers has been understated, and Cory have failed to appreciate the equalities impacts. Grant of the DCO would be inconsistent with the Secretary of State’s public sector equality duty. o The graziers are members of the gypsy community, whose families have historic ties to the land for multiple generations. The loss of grazing rights therefore needs to be viewed in an equalities context. o There is no detailed mitigation or compensation proposed, and accordingly the development fails to have due regard to this equalities impact. The loss of this land will be a genuine loss and may lead to the graziers vacating the area altogether.