Back to list Cory Decarbonisation Project

Representation by London Borough of Bexley (London Borough of Bexley)

Date submitted
14 June 2024
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

The main planning issues raised by the application are: • Air Quality;?? • Greenhouse Gases;?? • Climate Resilience;?? • Land Use and Consideration of Alternatives; • Terrestrial Biodiversity;?? • Marine Biodiversity; • Landside Transport;?? • Noise and Vibration;?? • Historic Environment;?? • Townscape and Visual (including Arboriculture);?? • Water Environment and Flood Risk;?? • Marine Navigation;?? • Socioeconomics;?? • Ground Conditions and Soils;?? • Population, Health, and Land Use;?? • Materials and Waste;?? • Major Accidents and Disasters; and ? • Cumulative Effects.?? These and the other material considerations are considered below. Air Quality The Council has reviewed Chapter 5 (Air Quality) along with the relevant appendices attached to this chapter of the Environmental Statement and any other relevant chapters. The proposed development has the potential for air quality impacts during the construction and operational phase. The review indicates that the assessment methodology mostly meets best practice. However, some issues have been identified which require further consideration by the applicant, in order to understand the significance of the air quality impacts of the scheme. The issues raised are highlighted below: • For a robust and thorough assessment, it is recommended that the full impact assessment for the operational phase should include an assessment of the impact of emissions from standby generators. The aim of this would be to confirm the opinion that short term impacts due to occasional operation of standby generators are unlikely to be significant. • An assessment of the air quality impact of non-road mobile machinery during construction of the proposed facility should be carried out. • The applicant should provide an assessment of the potential impact of the failure or abnormal operation of the Carbon Capture Facility. While this would form part of the permitting process for the proposed facility, this would be an important consideration for those living and working close to the proposed facility and should be addressed in the forum of the Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project process. • The applicant should confirm the overall risk of adverse impacts due to dust during construction of the proposed facility. The applicant should review and if necessary, update the proposed mitigation measures to be consistent with the level of risk. • The assessment of the potential effects of additives used to remove carbon dioxide from the flue gases is subject to greater uncertainty than other aspects of the study. The applicant should provide an evaluation of the effect of this uncertainty on the expected emissions of chemical additives, and the air quality impact of emissions of these substances and the chemicals that are formed from them in the atmosphere. • The applicant should update the cancer risk assessment to include the risk due to N- nitrosodimethylamine, a chemical which is formed in the atmosphere from the additives used in the process. • Some locations are forecast to experience increases in levels of air pollutants compared to the baseline, and some are forecast to experience decreases in impacts. The applicant should provide information on locations forecast to experience adverse impacts and substantiate the conclusion that the overall impact can be considered “not significant.” The applicant should consider whether the overall significance of impact should be revised after taking all the issues raised into consideration. • The applicant should include an appropriate emissions monitoring and air quality monitoring programme to demonstrate that operation of the facility does not have any significant adverse effects on air quality, public health or the natural environment. The proposals for emissions monitoring should be fully described and should include all substances of potential concern. Climate Resilience The Council has reviewed Chapter 12 (Climate Resilience) and considers that the proposed development has the potential to be exposed to severe climate change impacts due to resultant climate-related hazards during the construction and operational phase. The review undertaken indicates that the climate resilience assessment methodology mostly meets best practice and follows the “IEMA EIA Guidance to Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (2020)”. However, there are some key issues relating to underestimation of the severity of sea level rise (SLR) and storm surge risk which require further consideration by the applicant in order to fully assess the significance of climate change impacts to the proposed development. At this time the Council has the following concerns. • Underestimation of severity of sea level rise and storm surge: The assessment lacks clarity on the height at which the facility would be constructed or raised to mitigate sea level rise impacts and associated flooding events. The proposed scheme is situated in the Thamesmead Policy Area characterised by low-lying ground levels typically 2m to 3m below high water on spring tides. While flood defences exist, the extent of protection, especially in terms of flood height, is unspecified. The flood defences mention an upper-end sea level allowance for the Southeast and River Thames, but it's unclear if they safeguard the proposed site effectively against flooding levels expected during surge tidal events or spring tides. Clarification is necessary to ensure adequate resilience against sea level rise and associated flooding risks. • Underestimation of vulnerability: The vulnerability assessment during the construction phase especially has underestimated vulnerability concerning extreme temperature events. Despite categorising all receptors' vulnerability as 'low', this assessment appears underestimated. For instance, construction staff, categorized with 'Low Sensitivity' to 'Extreme temperature events', are highly susceptible to such events, particularly when working outdoors during construction. This underestimation neglects the potential disruption from extreme events. While operational staff are considered at risk from various climate hazards, similar assessments should be conducted for construction staff. • Inclusion of relevant context, legislation, and best practice guidance: Specific inclusion of further legislation context and guidance given the lack of reference to recent and upcoming climate change risk assessments (CCRA3, CCRA4 & NAP3). • Spatial Modelling of UKCP18 Climate Projections Data: An absence of spatial resolution information in relation to climate projection modelling data. • Consideration of the Broader Implications of Land Use Changes for Climate Resilience: This involves understanding how alterations in land use impact vulnerability to climate hazards, ecosystem services, infrastructure, and development decisions, as well as their social and economic ramifications. Integrating climate considerations into land use decision-making processes enables proactive measures to identify vulnerabilities, preserve ecosystem services, ensure resilient infrastructure, address social and economic concerns, and facilitate long-term planning for climate resilience. Greenhouse Gases The Council has undertaken a review of the greenhouse gas emission impacts, mainly from Chapter 13 (Greenhouse Gases) of the Environmental Statement with the support of other relevant Chapters where appropriate, such as Chapter 2 (Site and Proposed Scheme Description). The scheme intends to capture 95% of the Carbon Dioxide emissions from the Energy from Waste Plant (EfW) Riverside 1 (operational) and Riverside 2 (under construction and planned to be operational in 2026), which accounts for 814,988 tonnes of fossil CO2 per year with the potential to contribute to Net Zero objectives, and 836,792 tonnes of biogenic CO2 per year with the potential to contribute to carbon removals or negative carbon emissions. The scheme would provide a net benefit to the Borough in terms of carbon emissions, however this would only be realised to the extent presented in the assessment if the plant runs continuously for the full length of its designed life. The technology, infrastructure and markets for carbon capture and storage are still developing, and this development would be a near first-of-a-kind project configuration in the UK. As such, there may still be some uncertainties over the project lifespan. Overall contributions to reducing climate change would also depend on the captured carbon being permanently stored, and as such readiness and accessibility of storage facilities in the relevant timeframe should be considered. The main concerns that the Council have with this proposal can be summarised as follows: • Bexley Council does not currently have a Net Zero Strategy, therefore addressing any relevant points have been conducted in accordance with existing strategies applicable to Bexley and Greater London as per Policy Review in Chapter 13 (Greenhouse Gases- Section 13.2). • The GHG assessment has not considered any future evolution of waste throughput and composition as an immediate consequence of the implementation of upcoming expected waste policies and legislation on landfill, RDF exports or the inclusion of the ETS scheme. The estimated impacts associated to the emissions for the existing and future baseline in Chapter 13 are only based on maximum permitted waste inputs and existing split in biogenic and fossil carbon. The Council recommends a revision of this approach which considers any expected implications of the predicted future waste evolution across the EfW and Proposed Scheme’s lifespan, as well as any potential variation in the fossil and biogenic split which may have a relevant impact on the carbon net savings. • Baseline calculations do not include construction and decommissioning activities, as well as any emissions associated with the boundaries of the plant operations in the short and medium term (fuel used in burners, mobile plant equipment, residues from the EfW plant, etc). • Any carbon avoidance or savings as a consequence of the existing waste operations (IBA and metal recycling, heat and power, etc) have not been considered, despite the approach and methodology considering carbon avoidance as part of the life cycle assessment. • Changes in the profile of net electricity exports after installing the carbon capture plant have not been considered; this is expected to have an impact on the energy exports as it would require some heat and power demand and therefore an energy sacrifice from the turbine generators as well as an additional source to replace the sacrificed exported energy from the EfW plant. Carbon savings would be recommended to be included as well as part of the baseline. • The proposed development has not considered decommissioning activities within the worst-case scenario (50 years), despite this the development would have an impact similar to the initial construction activities. • Consideration of the impacts associated with the proposed Jetty and the logistical infrastructure are not detailed in Chapter 13. The Council recommend including the GHG impacts associated with the construction, operation and decommissioning of the Jetty and the associated infrastructure, including the logistics between vessels. • Greenhouse gas impacts which could arise from the onward transport and storage network being unavailable have not been considered within the assessment. Given the uncertainties surrounding development of these networks, it is recommended that consideration is given to Greenhouse gas impacts if the capture plant were to be operational prior to geological storage being ready or if there were temporary disruptions in either the transport or storage aspects of the network. • The conclusions for the net emission savings seem to overstate the potential greenhouse gas removals achievable by the plant but does reflect the net CO2 captured. Whilst the proposed scheme would have an overall beneficial impact on greenhouse gas removals from atmosphere it would not be in the region of -1.6 MtCO2e/yr of removals. We recommend a revision of the calculation and the final figure following comments in Table 2 and the proposed calculation. • It is noted that at Scoping Opinion stage, the Inspectors did not agree that decommissioning of the carbon capture plant at end-of-life should be scoped out. The Council recommends that this is reviewed and is included in the Greenhouse gas assessment. It is unclear whether the worst-case scenario with the existing Power Station Jetty has been calculated as mentioned in the methodology. The construction, operations and other aspects of the new jetty infrastructure to move the captured carbon is not detailed nor are the Greenhouse gas impacts quantified in the assessment. • The overall detailed and applied methodology is appropriate in its approach to considering biogenic carbon, which if permanently stored would contribute to carbon removals as these were in the carbon cycle already, whereas the fossil carbon that is capture will only be reduced (the minimum value will reach zero if all fossil emissions are captured, as these are released from human activities and these were not in the natural carbon cycle). This is in line with the IPPC and the GHG protocol. Fossil emissions will never account for negative removals. However, the Council recommend a review of the fossil emissions associated with the baseline plant to ensure all relevant associated activities are included. Land Use and Consideration of Alternatives Please note that the comments made by the Council in relation to Land Use and Consideration of Alternatives should be read in conjunction with the Councils Terrestrial Biodiversity comments which are set out immediately following these comments. The Council has reviewed Chapters 3 (Consideration of Alternatives) and 14 (Population, Health and Land Use) and whilst the development may offer benefits to the wider environment through the capture of carbon emissions, any value must be weighed up against the direct negative environmental impacts that could cause harm to nature conservation and the local environment. This needs to be included in the detailed consideration of all site options given that the benefits versus harm outcome will vary for each option. The protection of biodiversity is an important objective of national policy and the Development Plan (Bexley Local Plan (2023) and London Plan (2021)) for the area and should be given appropriate weight in decision making. The majority of the land use designations attributed to the chosen Carbon Capture site are provided with protection from development through National, Regional and Local Development Plans. The definitive adopted boundaries for all designations are shown on the Bexley Local Plan Policies Map. The following designations cover all or part(s) of this site: Functional Floodplain (EA Flood Zone 3b); Local Nature Reserve (a Natural England designation); Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation; Strategic Industrial Location and Thames Policy Area (London designations); Strategic Green Wildlife Corridor; and Southeast London Green Chain. With regard to MOL this is given the same status and level of protection as the Green Belt. Consideration therefore needs to be given to the relevant guidance within the NPPF (2023). Chapter 13 of the NPPF discusses the acceptability of development within the Green Belt. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (Paragraphs 152-153). This is supported by Policy G2 of the London Plan (2021) as well as Policy SP8 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023).?? ?? NPPF Paragraphs 154-155 highlight the forms of development within the Green Belt which may be considered to be appropriate. In the context of this development, it is considered that the proposals would not qualify as one of the forms of development which are considered as not inappropriate in Paragraphs 154-155 of the NPPF (2023) and therefore the development by definition is an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt.? Consideration therefore needs to be given to whether any Very Special Circumstances exist to warrant this application being acceptable. No Very Special Circumstances have been provided as part of this application and therefore, without justification, it can only be considered that the proposal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The chosen Carbon Capture facility location would result in the loss of part of the Erith Marshes Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (MSINC), and an amendment to the Crossness Nature Reserve boundary, resulting in the loss of part of the existing nature reserve, with an additional area added, that is also within the existing MSINC. The Crossness Nature Reserve forms part of the larger Erith Marshes MSINC. The additional status assigned to the Local Nature Reserve, should not lessen the perceived value of the rest of the Erith Marshes MSINC, or its importance for nature and the vital role the area plays in conserving our natural heritage. A zoomed in view of the Erith Marshes MSINC boundary and description can be found in the partial review addendum to the SINC Report, pages 13 to 14, along with the Local Plan policies map. The Erith Marshes MSINC receives its metropolitan status because it is one of the most significant sites for nature conservation, not only within Bexley, but within London as a whole. It is one of the best examples of London’s habitats, being one of the very few remaining areas of Thames-side grazing marsh in London, supporting scarce birds, plants and insects. The proposed Carbon Capture project is considered to not be an appropriate use for the land it is proposed to be located on. The proposed location of the development conflicts with a series of land use designations that protect land in this area for its value and ongoing contribution to nature conservation, openness, and flood resilience. As the proposal is considered to not be policy compliant, a thorough consideration must be given as to whether the potential benefits of the project outweigh the harm to this area’s environmental value, including a full consideration of reasonable alternate sites, with a particular focus on alternate sites that are not fettered by the above planning constraints. Reasonable alternatives are discussed in the following documents: • APP-052: 6.1 - Environmental Statement - Chapter 3 - Consideration of Alternatives • APP-125: 7.5 - Terrestrial Site Alternatives Report • APP-126: 7.6 - Jetty Site Alternatives Report Economic Impacts are discussed in the following document: • APP-064: 6.1 - Environmental Statement - Chapter 15 - Socio-economics The proposed location would result in the acquisition of Munster Joinery and the loss of 50 to 54 jobs. The type of work attributed to this development is likely to be highly skilled and, with a high density of jobs to square metres of employment floor space, contributes to meeting Local Plan objectives for employment. The Applicant’s existing Riverside 1 (and 2 once fully constructed) are located on the western edge of the much larger Belvedere Industrial Area, a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL). Development of the Carbon Capture facility within the SIL would be policy compliant, and due to its proximity to the site would be reasonable to consider as an alternative site. Only one reasonable alternative site option has been considered within the Belvedere Industrial Area, which is considered insufficient given the applicant’s preferred location is considered to not be policy compliant. The one alternative site explored is shown on Figure 2-3 (Doc Ref. APP-125), the ‘East’ Development Zone, located within the SIL. This zone performed poorly against the Applicant’s optioneering principles. However, the Council considers that with greater scrutiny of these issues and the Belvedere Industrial Area, many of these issues could be overcome, or are potentially of a lesser impact than those associated with the proposed location. The East Zone comprises of the Iron Mountain Records Storage Facility, and Lidl Warehouse and Regional Distribution Centre. Iron Mountain currently employs approximately 55 staff, which, given the size and the type of use of this facility, offers low density employment. There is no mention of Iron Mountain in the Socio-economic chapter (Doc Ref. APP-064), therefore, it would appear conclusions have been reached without fully exploring this site as an opportunity. The East Zone includes the Lidl Warehouse/Belvedere Regional Distribution Centre, a newly constructed development, which provides a significant number of jobs. However, no consideration has been given to the ASDA Erith CDC / XDC, which given its location, being opposite the chosen Carbon Capture location and to the south of Iron Mountain, would seem reasonable to expect this to be fully considered as an alternative option The North development zone shown on Figure 2-3 (Doc Ref. APP-125), comprising the intertidal zone of the River Thames, where the current Belvedere Power Station Jetty (disused) is located. This is also an alternative site for the proposed jetty, option A (Doc Ref. APP-126). The Port of London Authority has highlighted this location in its Thames Tidal Masterplan as an excellent opportunity for the decarbonisation project to bring the Middleton Jetty into use. It is therefore considered that more detailed considerations of this site, Iron Mountain, and ASDA needs to be undertaken. The evidence submitted with the application does not appear to have followed up with the same amount of thought and analysis of reasonable alternatives, as it has given to the preferred location, which does not justify that these alternatives are not appropriate or would not enable the benefits to be realised without resulting in less harm than demonstrated. Policies SP9 and DP20 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) commits the Council to protecting, conserving, restoring, and enhancing ecological networks, Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), Local Nature Reserves, Strategic Green Wildlife Corridors and Local Wildlife Corridors. The London Plan Policy G6A states that Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation should be protected and this is further re-enforced at paragraphs 8.6.2 and 8.6.4. The London Environment Strategy (LES) is also makes clear that Metropolitan Grade SINC’s are of the highest priority of protection (LES Appendix 5 paragraph A.1.2.3-A.1.2.3.1). This is because these are sites which contain the “best examples of London’s habitat sites which contain rare species, rare assemblages or important populations of species or sites which are of particular significance within otherwise heavily built-up areas of London.” (LES Appendix 5 paragraph A.1.2.1) Should the proposal be built out on the land subject to this application, the development would result in the loss and damage to a Metropolitan Grade SINC, something which exists in a very few other places in London. Given the strong policy protections afforded to the land use designations on the chosen Carbon Capture area, significant planning weight is placed on protecting this land from development. Strong justification for the chosen area, with detailed consideration of alternatives should be an important part of this proposal. Policy G6(c) of the London Plan (2023) states that where harm to a SINC is unavoidable, and where the benefits of the development proposed clearly outweigh the impacts on biodiversity, mitigation measures using the mitigation hierarchy (set out in the policy) should be applied. Proposals for the chosen Carbon Capture area would result in harm to the wildlife value of land designated as Metropolitan SINC, therefore the Applicant needs to demonstrate that the ‘harm’ to the SINC is ‘unavoidable’ and also that ‘the benefits of the development proposal clearly outweigh the impacts on biodiversity’ before applying the London Plan mitigation hierarchy. Policy DP20 (2a) of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) considers whether there are ‘any reasonable, less damaging, alternative solutions, locations or sites’. Development that has the potential to harm the wildlife value of SINC may be considered unavoidable where all other reasonably available sites, of lower ecological value, and alternative solutions have been carefully considered and discounted with an appropriate level of justification. The applicant must also demonstrate that ‘the benefits of the development proposal clearly outweigh the impacts on biodiversity’. Once this process has been undertaken, the mitigation hierarchy, and other biodiversity policy requirements should also be applied. It is evident that each of the alternative development zones have a degree of value for wildlife and nature conservation, with site of importance for nature conservation land use designations within each. However, these designations have different levels of importance, and therefore a different priority for protection when comparing one against another. For example, the Belvedere Dykes SINC is a borough grade SINC, which means, whilst the site is of significance to wildlife at a borough level, it does not hold the same level of significance as the Erith Marshes SINC which is a Metropolitan SINC, which is of significance to the whole of London. The detailed ecological impacts are discussed in the following document: APP-056 6.1 - Environmental Statement - Chapter 7 - Terrestrial Biodiversity APP-057 6.1 - Environmental Statement - Chapter 8 - Marine Biodiversity These documents do not appear to consider alternative options, with the application relying on the reasonable alternative documents (APP-052, APP-125, and APP-126) which set out at a high level, what the ecological value of each development zone is. When assessing if ‘harm’ to the Erith Marshes Metropolitan SINC is ‘unavoidable’, opportunities to bring forward alternative sites, and their comparative value and impacts should be given careful consideration. There appears to be limited attempt within the evidence submitted to weigh up the ecological impacts of alternative sites against one another, and the submission omits any detailed ecological assessment of the alternative options, which would have provided a clearer understanding of the value the alternative sites hold for nature. Based on the evidence available, it is the Councils opinion that the chosen Carbon Capture site is likely to have the most significant ecological impact when compared to the alternatives. The development of the Iron Mountain and ASDA site would likely have the least ecological impact and would therefore be a preferable site, from an ecological perspective. As discussed above, the evidence submitted with the application does not appear to have followed up with the same amount of thought and analysis of reasonable alternatives, as it has given to the preferred location, which is unacceptable given the importance of this site. It is the Council’s view that a more detailed consideration of the Iron Mountain and ASDA site needs to be undertaken as a reasonable alternative. When considering whether ‘harm’ to a SINC is ‘unavoidable’, and whether ‘the benefits of the development proposal clearly outweigh the impacts on biodiversity’, National biodiversity targets (priorities for protection and reducing biodiversity loss) and Carbon Capture are also two conflicting priorities which need to be explored, with sufficient information provided to allow the decision maker to carefully weigh up the conflicting priorities, before making an informed judgement. Paragraphs 3.2-3.2.4 “ Do Nothing Scenario” of the submitted Consideration of Alternatives document set out that ‘the ‘Do Nothing’ scenario would be contrary to the UK’s commitment to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Consequently, it is not considered further.’ The consideration of alternatives makes no reference to the chosen carbon capture area, in terms of building on land protected for nature being contrary to the UK’s biodiversity commitments, such as those to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and protect 30% land for nature by 2030, and by 2042 restoring or creating 500,000ha of wildlife rich habitats and 75% of protected sites to favourable condition, securing their wildlife value for the long term. It is disappointing that the evidence has not put forward a more balanced assessment. APP-026:5.1 Consultation Report Appendices - Volume 1 - PIER Part 1 outlines the options for flue gas ducting routing. Four options A, B, C and D are presented. The report identifies Option B as the chosen ducting option. Despite the fact that two on-site options have been presented, the chosen option (Option B) is the only presented option that both has a section of ducting that lies outside the site and has a section of overhead ducting that falls within the Crossness LNR. In view of London Plan Policies G1 and G6 and Local Plan Polices SP8, SP9 and DP20 in so far as they relate to the protection of green infrastructure and biodiversity, potential harm to the ecology of the surrounding area should be a key consideration of all of the optioneering processes. There is a concern that the option appraisals do not include an assessment of the options in terms of their potential ecological impacts. Additionally, detailed assessment of the potential conflicts between buried on-site infrastructure and maintenance operations cited as the reasons for not choosing the on-site options (A and C) have not been presented as part of the justification for not pursuing these options further. It is therefore not possible to judge whether the on-site constraints render options A and C impossible as opposed to impractical. This is a particularly important point as this design decision has the potential to limit any further encroachment into the ecologically sensitive Crossness LNR. Therefore, it is considered that the submissions do not demonstrate that full consideration of all of the potential impacts affecting the flue gas ducting options have been carried out in line with relevant London Plan and Local Plan Policies. Terrestrial Biodiversity The Council has reviewed Chapter 7 (Terrestrial Biodiversity) of the Environmental Statement along with other relevant chapters such as Chapter 3 (Consideration of Alternatives) and considers that the proposed development has the potential for terrestrial biodiversity impacts during the construction and operational phase. The review indicates that the assessment methodology mostly meets best practice. However, there are some key issues relating to survey methodologies and mitigation recommendations which require further consideration by the applicant in order to understand the significance of the terrestrial biodiversity impacts of the scheme. The main issues that the Council has are as follows: • Further details required relating to Policies SP9 and DP20(2) of The Bexley Local Plan (2023) as well as Policy G6 of the London Plan (2021) to show how the proposals would meet the requirements of these policies. • Explanation regarding the locations for on and off-site mitigation used for the delivery of biodiversity net gain. Current locations are within sites that are locally designated and therefore already have a management plan or functioning biodiversity. • Assessment relating to the population of wintering birds on site and if the populations are functionally linked to the Inner Thames Marshes SSSI, whether the site provides supporting habitat to the SSSI and if construction or operational activities are likely to have adverse impacts on the SSSI. • The population of Shoveler recorded on site was above the 1% national threshold. Further considerations are required relating to the impact of the scheme on Shoveler. • The wintering bird community comprises regularly occurring and significant numbers of important species alongside the shoveler peak count being higher than the 1% national threshold. The importance status should be considered as national rather than county for wintering birds. • There is no mention within the Environmental Statement that the site falls within the Thames Estuary and Marshes Important Bird Areas. IBAs are particularly important for species that congregate in large numbers, such as wintering and passage waterbirds and breeding seabirds. • In relation to the 'Environment Agency’s Ecology and Fish Data Explorer returned no records of fish data from within the Site'. The EA has carried out fish surveys within the Marsh Dykes catchment Area including the Great Breach Lagoon. eDNA survey seems limited in relation to spatial extent and probably why only 3 species of fish have been recorded. • Barn Owls were recorded as having a probable breeding territory within the site with multiple records returned from Thames Water of Barn Owl within the nest boxes and hunting on site. More detailed assessment on the impacts of the 2.5ha of grassland on breeding Barn Owls. Possible specific Barn Owl surveys required to understand the core foraging zone within the site. • The reptile surveys were undertaken in a very small time period from 13/09/2023 to 03/10/2023. More detail is required regarding the limitation of the small survey window undertaken and the assumptions made regarding the reptile population on size, mitigation and potential impacts from the scheme on the reptile population. Marine Biodiversity The Council has reviewed Chapter 8 (Marine Biodiversity) along with appendix 8-1 (Marine Baseline Surveys) and considered that the development has the potential for marine biodiversity impacts during the construction and operational phase. The review undertaken indicates that the assessment methodology mostly meets best practice. However, there are some key issues relating to data sources, survey methodologies and mitigation recommendations which require further consideration by the applicant in order to understand the significance of the marine biodiversity impacts of the scheme. At this time the Council has the following concerns. • Fish data evidenced for the proposed development within Marine baseline was collected only via beam trawl methodology and therefore does not follow the Water Framework Directive (WFD) multiple method monitoring for fish in transitional water. To further define the baseline, additional data should be obtained from Kent & Essex Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority (K&E IFCA) and Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS). • Within the identified Habitats of Principal Importance, intertidal mudflat and saltmarsh have been amended to be assessed as of National importance however descriptions and surveys of the intertidal and marine biotopes have not been provided. • The impact to migratory fish needs to be clarified in relation to construction activities and dredging e.g. European smelt will be migrating during February for spawning. However, the migratory window for other species occurs between April and September. Potential risks and mitigation options to migration paths should be considered within the construction methodology to account for variable migration events. • The defined baseline fish populations impacted by the proposed scheme is based only on two sampling occasions on two separate years and the EA Ecology and Fish data explorer was not used to establish baseline. A more robust baseline species composition should be established using data collated from all fish sites within the Thames Middle WFD water body. • Recreational angling for sea bass is common within the Middle Reach of the Thames Tideway however no reference to the Medway nursery area has been made. Further data from Kent & Essex IFCA and CEFAS should be evidenced to understand the impact to this. • Within the assessment of likely significant impacts, it suggests that the fish species present have a low sensitivity to noise and vibration however there is insufficient evidence for this conclusion. • With regard to the underwater noise modelling results and potential effects, it is stated that NMFS Optional Multi-species Pile Driving Calculator model has been used to provide results and assess the potential affects. However, as this tool was designed based sensitivities of north American fish species, it is unclear how applicable this is within the Thames Estuary and UK fish species and further clarification is required. Landside Transport The Local Highways Authority have reviewed the relevant chapters of the Environmental Statement as well as the draft DCO. At this time the Local Highway Authority raises no objection in principle to the development as the details submitted in the Environmental Statement are similar to those provided and commented on at EIA Scoping and Preliminary Environmental Information Report stages. Notwithstanding the above, the Local Highway Authority does raise some concerns with regard to the wording of some of the highways related clauses in the draft DCO with particular reference to Public Rights of Ways (PRoWs) and alterations to Norman Road and Picardy Manor Way. Part 2, Streets, Paragraph 12 Paragraph 12 (1) provides the Developer with the power to alter, temporarily or permanently, the layout of or to construct any works on Norman Road in the manner specified in column (3) of schedule 5 but must not be exercised without the consent of the Street Authority. It is critical the details and specification of any temporary and permanent changes to the highway are agreed with the Highway Authority at the earliest opportunity to ensure the changes are designed to an appropriate standard as to not compromise the structural integrity of Norman Road which is supported by multiple concrete piles (significant engineering construction). Part 2 Paragraph14 Paragraph 14 of the draft DCO grants consent for the developer to temporary alter, divert, prohibit the use or restrict the use of streets by private means of access and PRoW and authorising vehicular use PRoWs included within Schedule 7. To ensure the Council can respond effectively to potential public queries relating to temporary closures or change of use to PRoWs specified within Schedule 7 and to ensure a temporary diversion route is of suitable use for the public. It is suggested wording is included within Paragraph 14 that requires the Developer to inform the Highway Authority of any such changes and agree any temporary diversion route. Part 2 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 15(1) of the draft DCO grants consent for the Developer to permanently stop up FP2 between points L and H on the access right of way plan, however must not be exercised until the Highway Authority has agreed the route for a substitute footpath between points H and L Clause 15 (1a). Part 2 Paragraph15 (3a) grants the Developer the right to construct (not the obligation to do so) new public footpaths between points B and D and L and M. The subsequent wording within Paragraph 15 (6) does not require the Developer to agree the route of any new public footpath between points B and D and L and M before the footpath is created but does require the Developer to provide plans to the Surveying Authority following the opening for public use of the PRoWs constructed. To ensure the route of new public footpaths created by the Developer of suitable alignment and acceptable for public use, it is suggested that wording is included within Paragraph 15 that requires the Developer to agree the route of new public footpaths with the Surveying Authority before it is created. To ensure the Council can fulfil their statutory requirement of keeping the Definitive Map and Statement up to date, it is suggested that wording is included with Paragraph 15 (6) for the Developer to provided plans to the Surveying Authority before the opening for public use of PRoWs constructed. Paragraph 15 (4a-f) permits the Developer to authorise the use of motor vehicles on the diverted FP2 route between points H and L, any new PRoW created under part 3a, FP1 between points M and S, FP2 between pints H and S and R and H, FP3 between points A and T, FP4 between points C and F. The draft DCO does not require the Developer to abided by S257 (permanent diversion of PRoW) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and S25 (creation of new PRoW) of the Highways Act 1980. This is a concern to the Local Highways Authority. Part 2 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 17 grants the power for the Developer and Street Authority to enter into appropriate agreements with respect to permanent changes to the highway, however the entering of an agreement is not compulsory. Considering the Developer is not required to enter into an agreement, this could create a possible maintenance and financial burden to the Council if temporary and permanent changes to the highway are not built to the to an agreed specification / design and appropriate standard. Therefore, it is suggested that wording is included within Paragraph 17 that requires the Developer to enter into an appropriate agreement (S278 of the Highways Act 1980) which offers a mechanism that guarantees temporary and permanent changes to highway are complete to an acceptable standard and thus reduce the risks to the Council. CTMP A framework construction traffic management plan (includes workfare construction traffic management plan) has been provided, but the Applicant advise a full Travel Plan (TP will be provided once a contractor is appointed. Considering the duration of construction, workforce required and estimated peak daily trips identified in the Transport Assessment (TA), measurable interim targets reducing the number of motorised trips should be established within the full TP. In addition to this, a protocol to monitor trips to and from the site should be established to understand reduction targets are being achieved. There are concerns of an overspill into the surrounding highway from private workforce vehicles, as a similar scenario occurred recently from a nearby development. Parking stress on the surrounding highway should be monitored by the appointed travel plan coordinator and if an overspill of parking onto the highway occurs as a result of workforce motorised vehicles, then measures to resolve the situation will need to be discussed and agreed with Bexley Council. Noise and Vibration It is the Council’s preference that the noisiest elements of the construction phases are restricted to between 08:00 and 18:00 hours on weekdays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays. This would make the development in line with other major infrastructure projects such as Crossrail. Dispensations to these times can be agreed as necessary with particular reference to tidal jetty works that would require some 24-hour working for logistical reasons. It is acknowledged however that the Inspectorate have previously set a precedent by allowing more relaxed working times (7am to 7pm) for other comparable schemes notably the Applicants Riverside 2 development. It is also accepted, given the relative distance from residential receptors, that with careful management and appropriate mitigation measures these projects have progressed without any significant complaints from local residents. However, notwithstanding this, the Council’s preference for working hours are considered reasonable. The draft CoCP has been reviewed and is considered to form an acceptable basis for ensuring the amenity of local residents can be adequately protected. Appropriate communication mechanisms can be implemented to provide an ongoing dialogue with all stakeholders as the development progresses. The applicant has commissioned specialist consultants to provide a 'Statutory Nuisance Statement' as part of the DCO submissions. This considers the adoption of 'best practicable means' in order to avoid any enforcement proceedings by the Local Authority under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. This statement has been reviewed and its conclusions and recommendations are considered acceptable. In terms of operational noise and vibration, the draft DCO will include a requirement that the operational rating sound levels are such that they will not exceed typical measured background levels at the closest residential dwellings. The nearest residential dwellings are located on Clydesdale Way. This relates principally to noise from ASHP's that have the potential to operate for limited periods. A series of mitigation measures including plant selection, location and acoustic barriers have been proposed. These are considered sufficient to achieve compliance with the target criteria. With the inclusion of the safeguarding measures and DCO conditions being proposed the Council is satisfied that all relevant considerations have been taken to ensure noise and vibration impacts associated with the scheme have been adequately addressed by the applicant. Historic Environment The Council has reviewed Chapter 9 (Historic Environment) of the submitted Environmental Statement and in principle raises no objection to this development. Notwithstanding this the Council would raise the following concerns which need to be addressed. In terms of the assessment which has been made relating to impacts upon the setting of above ground designated heritage assets, these conclusions rely on the use of the digital ZTV and submitted photomontages. It is the view of the Council that there would be some level of intervisibility between the development site (and the structures which are proposed to be constructed within it) and that of the designated heritage assets which are located outside of the site boundary, but within the study area (the Listed Buildings and the Conservation Area). Permanent effects are discussed from Paragraph 9.8.10 onwards and broadly conclude that it is the absorber column(s) and stack(s) which would be visible (which is largely attributed to their height). For the magnitude of change to the setting of designated heritage assets (the Conservation Area and Grade I and II Listed Buildings), all are assessed as low with there likely to be a direct, permanent Minor Adverse effect which is assessed as Not Significant. Whilst the conclusions above could be considered as appropriate and balanced by the Council, it is considered that it would be helpful if the development placed the proposal into 3D modelling software to check the accuracy of the photomontages submitted (Environmental Statement: 6.3 Appendix 10-4: Photomontages document). It is also considered that further assessment/consideration should be given to the designated heritage assets as receptors in themselves (the Conservation Area and the designated Listed Buildings) rather than relying solely on the photomontages and ZTV image (located on page 53 of the Design Approach Document) in order to fully understand any impacts upon the setting of the designated heritage assets within the study area. Paragraph 8.8.4 of the submitted Planning Statement covers the Belvedere Power Station Jetty, which is a non-designated heritage asset located within the site. The asset is not locally listed. The Council would continue to hold the stance for the preference that the jetty be retained and refurbished as part of the proposals. However, should the worst-case basis discussed be realised, then the suggested Historic England Level 2 Historic Building Recording is likely to be appropriate where the loss is unavoidable. Where loss will occur, as identified in Paragraph 8.8.12 the planning judgement concludes that the loss of the jetty would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset. The Council would accept this view but the public benefits of the proposal should then be assessed, in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 208 of the NPPF (2023). It is recommended that advice from Historic England should also be sought on the proposals. The site is located within a Tier 3 Archaeological Priority Area. As discussed above, the Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) should continue to be consulted on the application. Townscape and Visual (including Arboriculture) The Council has reviewed Chapters 10 (Townscape and Visual), other relevant chapters such as Chapter 9 (Historic Environment), associated appendices, the submitted Planning Statement and the Design Approach Document. The applicant has accepted that the proposed development would have a visual impact on the area and has quoted paragraph 5.10.35 of the Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (EN-1) which states that “The scale of energy projects means that they will often be visible across a very wide area. The Secretary of State should judge whether any adverse impact on the landscape would be so damaging that it is not offset by the benefits (including need) of the project.” Paragraph 8.9.15 of the Statement of Case goes on to state that “The Townscape and Visual Assessment has concluded that the Proposed Scheme could have significant adverse effects on the landscape, however these impacts are limited and specific to the position of the Proposed Scheme in its townscape and direct views of it, which can only be experienced locally, and will be viewed in the context of the future baseline. The intra-project effects of this townscape and visual with residual effects in air quality and population, health and land use results in a significant adverse effect on users of Accessible Open Land.” As identified above, the potentially vast scale of energy infrastructure ultimately means that there is likely to be visual effects for receptors around proposed sites. The Council agree that there will be significant adverse effects on the landscape but would not agree that these are solely limited and specific to the position of the proposed scheme in its townscape and direct views of it. This is especially true of the absorber columns which are proposed. As indicated on the photomontages (Environmental Statement: 6.3, Appendix 10-4: Photomontages), it is clear that the absorber columns are very prominent from a number of further ranging views, see Views 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. There are likely to be more views which will be affected too which have not been surveyed or mentioned. Policy DP12 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) sets out what the Council considered to be a tall building and also states that in a SIL a tall building should not normally be more than 25 metres in height. Paragraph 4.24 of the Bexley Local Plans states that ‘Bexley is currently a borough of relatively low density development and few tall buildings when compared to other parts of London’. Furthermore, Paragraph 4.26 states that: “Appropriate locations for taller buildings have been informed by the Local Plan spatial strategy (Policy SP1 and the Key Diagram), the Bexley Local Character Study and the local strategic views framework. A detailed urban morphology study was a key part of the Bexley Local Character Study and considered nine aspects of the borough’s built character, including typologies, variations in existing building heights, and densities. By considering this analysis alongside the Local Plan spatial strategy, it is possible to consider which locations in the borough are appropriate for taller buildings, and to apply specific maximum building heights, as set out in policy DP12. Some locations in the borough already have quite tall buildings but this does not set a precedent for more tall buildings in these areas if the area has not been identified as suitable’. The submitted Design Approach Document (March 2024, Revision A, uploaded in 3 parts) does not reference this Policy DP12 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023) on page 12, under the Design Policy section. This policy is a material planning consideration. At this stage, the Council would raise that the absorber columns are significant structures, which significantly exceed any of the policy parameters for building heights, as stipulated under Policy DP12 of the Bexley Local Plan (2023). At circa 113 metres and separated by quite a physical distance from the taller strictures at Riverside 1 (fully operational) and Riverside 2 (under construction), the absorber column towers would have a significant impact upon the character and appearance of the area, both at more local and through wider range views. These impacts are illustrated across the submitted documentation, including within the Environmental Statement – Appendix 10-4 – Photomontages, and within the Design Approach Document (pages 100, 103, 109, 112 The applicant should address the building heights policy, in particular for those structures which exceed the specified parameters of Policy DP9 e.g. the absorber columns, regeneration system, and the carbon dioxide compression and storage units. Furthermore, with regard to the photomontages provided, these have been produced using ZTV and it is considered that for the purposes of proper comparison, photomontages and modelling should be submitted with the site as is (with the addition of Riverside 2 to be shown as constructed), and then with the proposed buildings and structures proposed under this application. This will aid interpretation and ensure that comparisons and conclusions are accurate. As referenced in the Historic Environment section of this response, it would be helpful if the proposed development were placed into 3D modelling software in order for the Council to have a fuller understanding of the visual impacts of the proposed development. As referenced in the Land Use and Consideration of Alternatives section of this response the application site is located within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). MOL has the same status as Green Belt Land. There are a number of High Court decisions relating to the impact on openness and visual appearance within the Green Belt which are relevant. These have established a number of key principles, including that it is not simply about volume and “visual impact is implicitly part of the concept of "openness of the Green Belt" and that ‘openness of the Green Belt’ is not limited to the volumetric approach; the word ‘openness’ is open-textured and many factors are capable of being a material consideration. The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) which supports the NPPF (2023) provides further clarification on assessing the impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. The NPPG highlights a judgment based on the circumstances of the case is needed. By way of example, the courts have identified a number of matters which may need to be taken into account in making this assessment. These include, but are not limited to: • openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume; • the duration of the development, and its remediability – taking into account any provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved) state of openness; and • the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic generation. It is considered by the Council that the proposal does not adequately address the above. With regard to trees the Council has reviewed Appendix 10-3 (Arboricultural Impact Assessment) and 6.2 Figures: Part 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment. No tree survey can be found within the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and therefore all the Council can tell from the details submitted is what category the applicant believes the trees to be felled are. As such the Council is unable to make a full assessment of what impact the loss of these trees would have on the immediate area. Water Environment and Flood Risk The Council has no objections in principle to the development and the proposed drainage strategy accompanying the submission. The applicant has stated that a detailed drainage strategy will be submitted in due course. The detailed drainage strategy should be accompanied by calculations demonstrating that the discharge to the local watercourse shall be limited to the greenfield runoff rate for all events. The outline drainage strategy makes assumptions on the permeability of different areas. Details will need to be submitted within the detailed drainage strategy to justify these assumptions. While the applicant has indicated that they anticipate the development to have a lifetime of 50 years. The Planning Practice Guidance states that for non-residential uses, the lifetime of the development shall be considered to be 75 years. On this basis should the climate change allowances be applied to the Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy. This therefore means that a climate change allowance of 40% should be applied to these assessments. The Council would expect to see multiple maintenance access points to the ditches from the highway. Marine Navigation LBB has no control over marine navigation on the River Thames. This falls within the jurisdiction of the Port of London Authority (PLA) and therefore the Council will not be commenting on this element of the proposal. Notwithstanding this, Bexley are the first subject of a borough-by-borough analysis by the PLA, highlighting strategic opportunities to increase use of the tidal Thames for communities, businesses and recreation, and enhance its natural environment. The Tidal Thames Masterplan for Bexley highlights the Cory Decarbonisation Project as a Future Opportunity. Socio-economics The project has the potential to contribute to employment needs in the north of the borough, an area with relatively high levels of unemployment. There are opportunities in both the construction and operation of the development and these benefits need to be secured. However, there may also be adverse impacts on existing employment sites at or near the site, which will need to be investigated. An employment and skills plan would need to be agreed that optimised the benefits of the opportunities associated with the development. Further details on the Schedule of Works would be needed to fine tune plans for apprenticeship, placements for schools and other outcomes, but at this stage the area that would need to be addressed would include: • Work Placement (in education). • Work Placement (NEET). • Work Placement (adult unemployed). • CEIAG Event/Advice. • Apprenticeships Level 3/4+ (developer). • Apprenticeships Level 2 (sub-contractor). • Group Site Visit / Workshop – College. • Construction H&S/Ethics Workshop – College. • Progression into Employment - (move from unemployment/full time education). • Progression into Sustained Employment (26 weeks) - (move from unemployment/ full time education). Ground Conditions The Council has reviewed Chapter 17 (Ground Conditions and Soils) of the Environmental Statement and raises no concerns at this time subject to the imposition of requirement 21 of the draft DCO. Population and Health The Council has reviewed 14 (Population, Health and Land Use) and in principle does not object to this proposal from a population and health standpoint. It is considered that other legislation would provide safeguards for population and health impacts. Materials and Waste The Council has reviewed Chapter 16 (Materials and Waste) of the Environmental Statement and has no further comment to make at this stage other than those raised elsewhere in this response with for example the demolition of Belvedere Power Station Jetty or the demolition of the carbon capture plant at the end of its life cycle. Major Accidents and Disasters The Council has reviewed Chapter 20 (Major Accidents and Disasters) of the Environmental Statement and at this time has no further comment to make at this stage other than those raised elsewhere in this response for example the failure or abnormal operation of the Carbon Capture Facility. Cumulative Effects The Council has reviewed Chapter 21 (Cumulative Effects) of the Environmental Statement and at this time has no comments to make over what is raised above. Conclusions All other relevant policies and considerations have been taken into account. Any DCO that is granted should take into account the above representations.