Back to list Lower Thames Crossing

Representation by Port of London Authority (Port of London Authority)

Date submitted
23 February 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. The Port of London Authority (“PLA”) is the statutory harbour authority for the tidal Thames (the “River”). Its statutory functions include responsibility for conservancy, including dredging and improvement; authorising works, environment, managing public navigation and ensuring navigational safety and controlling vessel movements. The PLA also promotes use of the River. 2. The PLA has concerns about the proposed development, insofar as it relates to the River, including in respect of the feasibility of the tunnel design and the impacts of the proposals on use of the River. Importance of ports 3. The Port of London is the country’s biggest port and is the UK’s busiest inland waterway for the movement of freight. In 2021 81% of vessel arrivals to the Thames were to berths upstream of the Order scheme. There is significant ongoing investment including by the Port of Tilbury and at the Thames Freeport. This approach is supported by the National Policy Statement for Ports (January 2012). 4. It is imperative that the existing and future capacity and operation of the Port of London are not compromised during construction and operation. The PLA has engaged extensively with the Applicant to try to secure safeguards regarding works proposed in the River and matters such as channel depths. However, the Applicant appears to lack understanding of the Port of London, and seems to consider the impacts upon it to a lesser extent than, for example, the Port of Tilbury. The Applicant has sought to design so much flexibility into the Order scheme that, if exercised, it would place undue and prejudicial constraints on River users. Depth of the tunnel 5. The PLA is concerned that the tunnel will not be of sufficient depth to accommodate both current and future river trade and that it will compromise dredging needed to accommodate safe navigation and future use of the Port. The PLA is also concerned that the current scheme is not implementable and that it will not be possible to construct the tunnel on the alignment shown for various reasons. Utilising the upward limit of deviation and depending on the level of tunnel protection required, the Applicant could not achieve the minimum cover required for the tunnel without impacting detrimentally on the PLA’s ability to dredge the navigable channel. Different figures are shown in different documents, making the position unclear. If dredging the navigable channel is undertaken to the agreed depth, there will not be the minimum cover required for the tunnel to prevent the potential need for additional fill or scour protection over the tunnel, and the depth of the navigation channel would be reduced. If the Applicant were to exercise the maximum extent of the upward limit of deviation provided for in the draft Order, or if the PLA was to dredge to the agreed depth, the Applicant would not be able to acquire the extent of subsoil required to construct the tunnel. These and other inconsistencies need to be resolved. Use of the River 6. There is insufficient clarity and commitment in respect of sustainable transport of construction materials and construction workers. 7. Robust commitments and reporting procedures are needed: in the PLA’s experience, neither commitments nor reporting by other projects have been sufficiently robust. Nor has the Applicant has not been able to provide data to the PLA concerning reporting procedures for other DCOs that it has promoted. In addition, the Applicant’s air quality commitments and management plan appear to relate only to road vehicles, and should relate to river vessels. Transfer of undertaking 8. Controls on the transfer of the whole, or part, of the benefit of the Order are limited. The PLA as a regulator has a direct interest in securing that any transfer would be to a suitable party and that the tunnel would not be left half built or poorly maintained. 9. The Order allows the transfer of any or all the Order powers, including powers of compulsory acquisition, to any or all of the twenty-two parties listed so far as they relate to that party’s current or future undertaking, with no further approvals needed. To remove uncertainty about which entities will exercise which powers, the Order should specify which relevant powers may be transferred to each of the bodies listed. Scope of powers sought - apparatus in the tunnel 10. The purpose of the Order is to authorise construction, operation and maintenance of a road tunnel and the powers sought should reflect that. However, an unqualified power to use the tunnel (i.e. not limited to highway purposes) applies equally to all potential transferees listed in article 8(5). The PLA is not content that a telecommunications undertaker with the benefit of the Order could install apparatus in the tunnel without having to obtain the usual licence from the PLA Scope of powers sought – acquisition of rights over the riverbed 11. The Application should clearly delineate the different possessions and acquisitions which are sought in respect of the river, and any rights of possession sought over the River should be specifically justified. The PLA can see no compelling case in the public interest for the Applicant to have the powers to acquire rights or impose restrictive covenants etc on the riverbed (see section 5.4 of the Statement of Reasons (doc ref 4.1) and plate 5.1). 12. If the Applicant were to impose restrictive covenants on the riverbed, conflicts would arise with the second protection zone as shown on the River Restrictions Plan (doc ref 2.14) and with article 48. The riverbed could become sterilised because the low-risk “exempt” activities permitted by article 48 in the second protection zone could be prevented from taking place and the PLA could be prevented from dredging to the agreed dredge level. 13. The effect of the Order proposals for acquisition of rights over, and of temporary possession and use of certain plots of land in which the PLA has an interest, as well as the extent to which this may interfere with the PLA’s existing private right(s), is also unclear. The PLA remains concerned about the extent of the powers sought in the Order to interfere with the river and the area sought for the acquisition of rights for the permanent outfall. Explosives anchorage 14. The tunnel passes directly under the PLA’s Higham Bight licensed explosives anchorage. It is entirely inappropriate for the Applicant to seek to disapply this explosives licence in whole or in part, without giving adequate consideration to a suitable replacement, particularly given its location and navigational conditions compared to other explosives anchorages. Protective provisions 15. Further amendments to the protective provisions are required. The PLA maintains that ground investigation (GI) works must be covered by the protective provisions; this is particularly important because when the Applicant undertook GI works in 2019, the borehole casing snapped in the riverbed, and the Applicant has left this casing within the navigable channel. Leaving such a work within the river requires a licence from the PLA and, despite frequent requests to the Applicant, the Applicant has not taken any steps to licence this unauthorised work. Other protections required include providing an agreed depth to be maintained outside the navigable channel and clarifying what activities would take place within the River. Inconsistencies and uncertainties in the Environmental Statement 16. The PLA has identified general inconsistencies and inaccuracies across the chapters of the Environmental Statement (doc ref 6.1) and with the register of environmental actions and commitments (doc ref 7.11). 17. There is uncertainty in respect of the production and approval of a marine biodiversity security plan. The archaeological written scheme of investigation (doc ref 3.3 Appendix 6.9) does not specifically consider the River, nor any maritime archaeology therein, or require the PLA’s approval. There is also confusion in the Application documents as to whether dredging is proposed in the Order scheme. Lighting 18. Lighting has the potential to impact detrimentally on navigation and on the ecology of the River. The Applicant appears to misunderstand the PLA’s environmental duties and it requires the submission of a lighting management plan (i) only to the MMO and (ii) only if 24-hour working is proposed. The PLA’s opportunity to comment is constrained by the Code of Construction Practice to commenting on lighting only insofar as it may adversely affect vessels, and there is no approval of the document that the PLA is to be consulted on.