DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BOARD

10 November 2016

Reference: 15/01743/OUT Officer: Tim King

Location: Roundabout Junction Bob Dunn Way & Thames Road (Howbury Park)

Proposal: Cross-boundary outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide a strategic rail freight interchange comprising a rail freight intermodal facility, warehousing, new access arrangements from Moat Lane, associated HGV, car and cycle parking, landscaping, drainage, and associated works (within Borough of Bexley). Creation of a new access road from the existing A206/A2026 roundabout, incorporating a bridge over the River Cray, landscaping and associated works (within Borough Council). All matters reserved except for Access

Applicant: Roxhill Developments Ltd

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield And Partners/Hugh Scanlon

Target Date: 11/03/2016

Parish / Ward: / Town

RECOMMENDATION:

Approval of Outline Permission, subject to a S106 Agreement.

SITE DESCRIPTION

(1) This is a 60 hectare site (149 acres) on land adjacent to an existing rail depot at . A cross-boundary application with the (LBB), the vast majority of the site lies within the adjoining authority's area, and then extends across the River Cray, which forms the boundary between the two boroughs.

THE PROPOSAL

(2) Outline planning permission is sought by the applicant, Roxhill Developments Ltd, with matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping all reserved for subsequent approval. Only the matter of access is for determination at this stage. The proposal's various elements are as follows:

- Demolition of the existing buildings on site; - Creation of rail access, including rail sidings, via the existing connection off the South Eastern Trains depot at Slade Green; - Provision of a central rail port forming part of an integrated intermodal area; - Creation of a series of development plots providing up to 184,500 sqm (GEA) of rail-served warehouse, distribution floorspace and hardstanding service areas adjacent to each building to allow for heavy goods vehicle access; - The creation of lorry and car parking within the site; - The creation of an internal access road, linking each unit with the new access road; - Provision of a new road access from the existing roundabout on Bob Dunn Way and Thames Road, across the River Cray via a fixed bridge into the application site; - The provision of a new access road to the existing Viridor waste recycling site, located directly south-west of the application site; - Retention of the land previously reserved for Crossrail to form a strip of undeveloped land adjacent to the Slade Green Depot; and - The implementation of an extensive landscaping scheme to help integrate the development with its urban fringe setting.

(3) The SRFI facility would employ approximately 2,500 people which includes 965 operational (warehouse, drivers) and approx. 1,521 non-operational (office, admin, managerial and IT/sales staff) operating a traditional '3 shift' pattern with conventional change-over periods of 6am, 2pm and 10pm, supporting 24 operational hours. As the internal layout of the site is not finalised, the application contains no details as to the number of on- site car parking spaces. However, it is unlikely that this would differ significantly to the parking provision associated with the previous planning consent, amounting to 1,167 car parking spaces and 381 HGV spaces, therefore remaining in line with London Borough of Bexley's B1-B8 use parking standards.

(4) The land within Dartford BC's area is limited to the relatively short stretch of land forming the vehicular access from the roundabout up to the point of the proposed fixed bridge crossing the River Cray.

(5) The main site access proposes a link to the A206 Thames Road / Bob Dunn Way Roundabout / dual-carriageway (primary road) by way of a new access road to the SRFI site, adjacent to the existing (Viridor) waste recycling facility. This would comprise a 7.3m single carriageway.

RELEVANT HISTORY

(6) A similar scheme, submitted in 2004, under Dartford BC ref: DA/04/00803/OUT and LB Bexley ref: 04/04384/OUTEA was appealed following Dartford's decision to refuse planning permission for the considered adverse impact on the openness and character of the Green Belt. For its part LB Bexley failed to determine the application within the prescribed period and a local inquiry followed.

(7) In December 2007 the Secretary of State, in agreeing with the appointed Inspector's recommendation, allowed the appeals. The overall conclusions were that, although the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and would cause substantial harm to it, the benefits of the proposal amounted to the very special circumstances necessary to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. On the basis of an apparent need for such developments at that time and, considering that the proposal was seen not to be inconsistent with the various development plans (save for the Green Belt issue), planning permission was granted for a rail freight interchange with dedicated intermodal facility and rail-linked warehousing, subject to two separate S106 agreements; one covering a series of highway obligations and the other concerned with non- highway obligations.

(8) In reaching the decision the Secretary of State agreed with the Inspector that the ability of the proposal to meet part of London's need for three or four SRFIs was the most important consideration to which she afforded significant weight. She also affords considerable weight to the lack of alternative sites to meet this need.

(9) The outline planning permission granted, however, subsequently lapsed as the reserved matters were never furthered. COMMENTS FROM ORGANISATIONS

(10) Greater London Authority (GLA)

The GLA's Stage 1 response is summarised as follows:

- Green Belt Proposed development is inappropriate and would be harmful to the Green Belt. A 'very special circumstances' case based on identified strategic need and the lack of alternative sites which could accommodate such a large facility and have access to the road and rail network has been made, which is considered to be persuasive but further information should be sought on the proposed carbon emission savings, reduction in traffic movements and the impact on the passenger rail network.

- Strategic Rail Freight Interchange (SRFI) Supported under London Plan Policy 6.15, subject to clarification on carbon emission saving and wider transport impacts. Recognition of previous planning consent for Howbury Park.

- Economic development The proposal would make a significant positive economic impact and help support the Bexley Riverside Opportunity Area and Regeneration Area.

- Transport Concern regarding the potential impact on passenger rail, in addition to a number of other strategic transport issues raised (including level of cycle parking and contributions to signage and bus shelters).

- Biodiversity The proposal would result in the loss of a significant area of land that proposes complementary habitats to the adjacent Marshes. Mitigation is proposed, but compensation measures should also be secured.

- Climate Change The proposed carbon dioxide savings would exceed those set out in Policy 5.2 of the London Plan.

- Inclusive design and access Conditions should be included on any consent to ensure the measures proposed are secured to meet the aims of London Plan Policy 7.2.

- The GLA recommends that LB Bexley be advised that the application does not currently comply with the London Plan, but that possible remedies could address these deficiencies.

(11) Highways England

- Highways England (HE) initial response in December 2015, following receipt of the application, showed particular interest in the potential impact that the development might have upon the A282/M25, in particular M25 Junction 1A. We are concerned as to whether there would be any adverse safety implications or material increase in queues and delays on the strategic road network as a result of development.

- The applicant's Transport Assessment (TA) provides evidence of traffic flows and queue lengths at the signalised roundabouts that were surveyed in June 2015. There were significant queue lengths on several lanes of different arms, most notably the Bob Dunn Way and the M25 southbound off-slip where evening peak hour queues of over 500 and 200 metres, respectively were recorded for some lanes. - From the data provided in the TA there is also an indication of traffic queueing on the northbound on-slip road from the main M25 carriageway. The queueing (along with mainline carriageway queueing) has been evident both with and without any network incidents, so is often simply down to capacity constraints.

- The view is that there are currently insufficient details supplied in order to properly determine a reasonable position in relation to the planning application. There is a risk based upon the evidence to date that the proposed development may result in severe harm to the A282 Trunk Road and M25 Motorway. Further information is required from the applicant to establish whether this is the case.

(12) Continued discussions between the applicant and HE, with input from KCC, DBC and LBB, have brought about a proposal whose impacts, mitigated by conditions, are considered acceptable to the Agency. This is considered later in the report.

(13) Kent County Council (Highways)

(14) From a Kent County Council perspective, this is an application where it is important to consider KCC Corporate Policy in summarising both pros and cons of the Howbury Park Strategic Railfreight Interchange. Relevant objectives presented in the (adopted) KCC Freight Action Plan include:

- 'To ensure that KCC continues to make effective use of planning and development control powers to reduce the impact of freight traffic';

- 'To take appropriate steps to tackle the problem of overnight lorry parking in Kent'

- 'To effectively manage the routing of HGV traffic to ensure that such movements remain on the Strategic Road Network for as much of their journey as possible' and 'To take steps to address the problems caused by freight traffic to communities'

KCC acknowledges and supports the consented SRFI within the 'Freight Action Plan for Kent 2012-2016', a corporately approved document which seeks to make better use of the rail network for the transportation of freight and goods within and beyond the County. Paragraph 6.6 offers support for the provision of rail interchanges closer to London and the M25, the Freight Action Plan stating 'including the Howbury Park facility in the Slade Green Area of Bexley'.

KCC's third Local Transport Plan (LTP3) presents the Strategy and Implementation Plans for local transport investment for the period 2011-2016. Paragraph 1.30 indicates that KCC supports the expansion of international rail freight although this will require the provision of appropriate freight handling facilities alongside the national motorway network, such as those under construction at Howbury Park near . LTP3 is currently being reviewed as part of the preparation of Kent's fourth Local Transport Plan, LTP4.

DfT's National Policy Statement for National Networks suggests that the use of freight trains can remove between 43 and 77 HGVs from the respective sub-regional road network. Howbury SRFI is intended to serve up to seven trains per day and therefore has the potential to remove between 300 and 540 HGV trips from the south-eastern road network, in terms of understanding the 'bigger picture'. At a more local level, it is difficult to forecast the volume of HGV trips that might be removed from the immediate highway network and so no assumptions have been made regarding this as part of the associated modelling methodology for this development.

Kent Highways is largely satisfied with the overarching approach/methodologies as presented in a series of key technical documents issued in support of the proposal including:

- The Draft Transport Assessment Scoping Report; - Technical Note 1 (Trip Generation Methodology) using DIRFT as the basis; - Technical Note 2 (Trip Distribution Methodology); - Technical Note 3 (Proposed Trip Generation Methodology).

However, KCC has some concerns that there is no official lorry parking in Dartford, with the nearest being Thurrock Services on the M25;

- Problems associated with off-site lorry parking are lorry-related crime, road safety, damage to roads, kerbs and verges, litter as well as noise pollution;

- There is no immediate solution to this, mindful of surrounding greenbelt land. It is - however - imperative (and safety critical) that absolutely no HGVs relating to this application, if consent is granted, should end up parked on public highway anywhere near to the facility or in/around Dartford. Further details should be forthcoming about how this would be enforced and managed by way of the management toolkit / interventions and perhaps best secured by way of a planning condition;

- With respect to Freight Quality Partnerships, KCC officer experience is that such forums can be largely ineffective and seen as a chore for all involved. More focussed 'governance arrangements'/ monitoring or project board incorporating the site specific Travel Plan/Freight Manager and individual Freight/Logistics Managers may be more effective.

- This application benefits from its strategic location in terms of good connectivity to the local and strategic highways network, a short distance from the M25 via Bob Dunn Way. Equally, this close proximity can be problematic;

- The risk with this development is HGVs may attempt to use Burnham Road, a residential road, especially when Junction 1A is blocked and the traffic has queued back to the proposed access. This is another argument in favour of a formal lorry parking area within the site as drivers can be informed of the localised congestion and choose to take their 'tacho break' within the site rather than join/exacerbate the queuing traffic. There is no way of preventing employee linked traffic from using local roads such as Burnham Road and resultantly traffic levels / flows will increase along such corridors. However, the nature of the shift-patterns associated with a development such as this mean that a majority of employee traffic movements will be 'off-peak';

- The Travel / Freight Management Plan advises that HGV movements along Burnham Road must be monitored by Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) upon first occupation of the site to identify if there is a problem with HGVs from the interchange using the road. KCC would expect to see a condition that the developer pays for the TRO if required. A similar ANPR system was used for a CO-OP distribution centre in Andover and KCC officers understand it has had problems with monitoring and enforcement.

Members may have concerns that this proposal will adversely impact on M25 J.1A. It is important to note that this Junction is being actively monitored/studied and an improvement package formed which is a quite separate to this planning application and reflects a multi-agency approach via Highways England, Kent County Council and Dartford Borough Council. This incorporates but is not limited to: - Over height Vehicle detection for Cross Ways and Bob Dunn Way; - VMS installations at strategic points; - Development of new signal timing plans for all junctions; - White Lining changes to Junctions 1a, 1b and 2; - Work jointly with HE on strategies to manage traffic.

- Whilst all of the aforementioned measures will certainly help smooth traffic flow and resultantly give the impression of slightly reduced queues/congestion in the locality, particularly with respect to reducing low-speed collisions and extractions of over-height HGV's within the tunnel approach traffic management cell, all parties are in agreement that in the longer-term something more significant is required at Junction 1a and the applicant is willing to make a significant financial contribution to begin building a fund.

- Over a period of time and via future Section 106 (developer contributions) from up to three additional local future planning applications/developments) - a more sizeable funding pot could be built and used to help lever investment via other potential future funding streams (such as the Local Growth Fund pot). The objective would be to make significant local highways infrastructure improvements within and around the footprint of Junction 1a with a view to:

- Improving the flow of traffic through a more fit-for-purpose junction with a larger footprint; - Separating local (east-west) traffic from the junction via a potential new over-bridge; - Reducing vehicular conflict and minor collisions caused by a historic junction with relatively narrow (in modern-day terms) traffic lanes; - State of the art traffic signals and associated/linked camera technology and possible synchronisation with Junction 1b.

- KCC Highways very much welcomes this more strategic/visionary approach to a 'longer-term' solution for a very congested and frequently problematic part of the local (KCC) and strategic (H.E.) highways network.

- KCC would not adopt the new 7.3m wide single carriageway access road., which, given that it would be used by both 44 tonne HGVs and also cyclists, should have an advisory speed limit of 20mph.

- The access road should, however, be built to adoptable standards and be designed in accordance with relevant design guides. It is recommended that local parking restrictions (signs/lines) are included to ensure HGVs (or any other vehicle for that matter) do not park/stand towards the Bob Dunne Way end of the access road. Camera control to be linked to the main operations/control room of SRFI, monitoring the access road, is encouraged, to ensure the access road is never reduced to a single lane.

- Access would be provided to the adjacent Viridor site which would remove the need for vehicles to use the current constrained access route provided under the railway line.

- The A206 provides direct access to the M25 London Orbital Motorway. In the vicinity of the site, the M25/A282 is generally 4 lanes in each direction.

- A bus only, pedestrian and cycle link is to be provided via Moat Lane (to the north of the site) which further serves as an emergency access as well as wider improvements to local footway/cycleway connectivity (via both the north and southern access junctions) to the site which will benefit employees and a minority of visitors to the site. 360 secure cycle parking spaces are proposed and a site- wide (combined) Travel & Freight Management Plan will support the sustainable transport components of the proposal. This Plan would be coordinated and monitored by a dedicated (on-site) manager working three days per week, which the developer has agreed to fund (with respect to salary) for fifteen years.

- A 3.0m wide (shared) footway/cycleway is proposed on the western side of the access road, separated from the carriageway by a 0.5m verge, with a 2.5m wide footway provided on the eastern side of the footway. Proposed dimensions are in accordance with the Kent Design Guide and the London Cycling Design Guide and KCC welcomes this. - Slade Green railway station is approximately 0.6km away (which amounts to an eight minute walk) from the site and the developer proposes a demand responsive shuttle bus which will serve the site and link to Slade Green Station, facilitating onward bus travel to destinations including Dartford, Bluewater, Erith, Crayford, Belvedere and . Both Dartford and Bluewater offer excellent bus (Fastrack) onward travel options, and excellent rail links are available from Dartford.

- KCC welcomes the proposal of a shuttle bus service between the SRFI and Slade Green Station, stopping at various points around the site, offering future employees the opportunity to utilise non-car modes of transport to travel to and from the site. However, KCC and Dartford Borough Council officers expect this shuttle bus to serve Dartford Train Station and have requested additional details to be submitted highlighting a framework/operational plan for such a service, this would be best secured by way of a planning condition.

- An assessment of the Personal Injury Accident data (PIA) was undertaken for the roads, junctions and approaches as listed below:

- A206 Northend Road / A206 Thames Road Junction; - A206 Thames Road; - A206 Bob Dunn Way; - M25 Junction 1a, and other local junctions.

- The (accident analysis) study area included in the Transport Assessment covered a wide area and spanned 2010 to 2015 which KCC welcomes (and requested). A total of 148 personal injury accidents were recorded including 3 fatal and 14 serious accidents. The vast majority related to driver error and were evident in clusters particularly at M25 (J.1a) where some 48 incidents occurred, predominantly caused by poor lane discipline, vehicles 'weaving' between lanes and rear shunts.

- The fatal collisions included:

- A motorcyclist overtaking a vehicle and colliding with an oncoming van; - A pedestrian under the influence of drugs walking into the path of a car; - A driver losing control and colliding with a railway bridge support to the west of the junction with Bob Dunn Way in dry and fine conditions, involving no other vehicles.

- KCC Highways does not believe the three aforementioned incidents highlighted the need for any specific (safety related) highway infrastructure modifications or improvements.

- Collisions involving vulnerable road users including pedestrians and cyclists totalled 17 over this five year period. There were 2 serious incidents. One was on Crayford Way involving an 11 year old running from behind a bus into the path of a van and the other, along Thames Way, involved a cyclist on the footway who was crossing at a junction and was struck by a vehicle travelling the wrong way down an access road

- In conclusion, there is no escaping the fact that Howbury Park Strategic Rail Freight Interchange will add traffic in the form of both light vehicles (cars and vans) and Heavy Goods Vehicles, to the local (and sub-regional/strategic) highways network. It will exacerbate existing periods of significant delay and congestion on approach to the existing river crossing at locations such as Junction 1a and 1b, M25. - Resultantly, the Highway Authority has some concerns over the additional local congestion this development would create. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.

- That can only be judged on a case by case basis, taking account of all material factors. KCC has considered the traffic assessment and the current and likely future conditions on the local highway network. This shows that the situation is likely to be worsened, but the highways authority is not able to conclude that it will result in conditions that could be described as a severe impact on congestion or safety.

- However, Members should be made aware that the residual impact of this development is likely to be characterised by additional local traffic generation and some consequent increase in congestion, which the applicant cannot mitigate that may also cause a worsening in local air quality.

- It should also be noted that Kent County Council Highways officers have maintained a regular dialogue with the developer and their respective (highways) agents, plus Dartford Borough Council and the London Borough of Bexley as part of the continuous development / refinement of this application prior to it going to the Development Control Board.

(15) Network Rail

- Given that the proposed scheme is for a Strategic Rail Depot we would expect further consultation and engagement with the applicant as the scheme progresses.

- One of our main concerns is the rail connection to the . Network Rail is soon to enter into an agreement to carry out a GRIP 1-2 (Network Rail's internal project and programme delivery framework) to review how a connection will work and what impact the proposed works will have on the rail network. This process will include a detailed TT study to review the potential impacts and possible restrictions that may need to be implemented to enable the connection scheme to move forward. As such, Network Rail will need to be further involved with discussions.

(16) Discussions have followed between Network Rail and the applicant, and the above comments have been updated, as follows:

Engineering and operations:

- We can confirm that a design solution has been identified which would not only provide Howbury Park with a suitable main line access, but would equip Southeastern Trains (SET) with an enhanced 12-car headshunt siding, replacing the constrained 10-car siding currently operated and avoid any internal SET depot movement conflicts with those to and from Howbury Park;

- Critically, the design would also allow trains to and from Howbury Park to be signalled to and from the main line directly by Network Rail, avoiding the need for Southeastern resources to be used to co-ordinate movements between Howbury and the main line and providing fail-safe reliability;

- We have identified an opportunity for the track works on the main line to be undertaken at the same time as another pre-planned maintenance possession in the Slade Green area, minimising any disruption to existing passenger and freight services; - To reiterate previous discussions we also see an opportunity for our own proposed depot enhancement works at Slade Green to be undertaken in parallel with those at Howbury Park, enabling us to use the Howbury site construction access, to minimise the need to bring heavy plant through residential roads in Slade Green;

- Beyond this, we have discussed with Roxhill the retention of permanent highway access between Slade Green depot and Howbury Park, which would further reduce the need to bring depot traffic through Slade Green residential areas.

Capacity and pathing

- The study revealed 7 trains per day in each direction can be achieved during the daytime inter-peak period with the timetable as it stands (so with current passenger & freight traffics), based on the worst-case (ie heaviest and slowest) combination of traction and rolling stock. Taking account of additional paths already available overnight, it is apparent that the current network capacity readily accommodates the requirements of Howbury Park;

- Typical of such developments, we expect a progressive development of the traffic base building from 1-2 trains per day pathed to match available line of route capacity across the country and available slots at origin ports and terminals. Any new services are planned and monitored closely by our national freight team to avoid performance issues; a useful parallel perhaps being the recent experience of some 5-6 additional daily freight services per day (spread throughout the night and day) hauling Crossrail spoil from Paddington to Northfleet, a quantum of additional freight traffic achieved without impact on existing passenger and freight services over the North Kent line;

- Notably the study work considered the proposals for a more intensive 'metro' style passenger service pattern along the North Kent Line during the day, which indicated two 7-minute gaps each inter-peak and off-peak hour for freight to access to/from Howbury Park, as well as the aforementioned overnight slots;

- Reflecting its current development status, detailed train path planning of the future extension of Crossrail 1 beyond Abbey Wood and any implications for existing freight and passenger services (including movements to/from Howbury Park/Slade Green depot) has yet to take place. However, I'm aware that the previous discussions between Crossrail and Roxhill raised no objections to the Howbury Park scheme.

- In summary, and in line with previous commentary on this scheme, with a proposal that works from a technical perspective and an absence of network capacity issues we reiterate our support for development of a SRFI at Howbury Park. This facility answers a market need for rail connected facilities in the south east and it would seem there is a unique window of opportunity currently with our Infrastructure Projects team primed to deliver the relevant rail access works alongside our own Slade Green depot enhancement programme for Slade Green depot.

(17) Port of London Authority

- The PLA has specified the parameters that the proposed bridge over the River Cray should meet. Clarification should also be provided on the width of the red line over River Cray. It is understood that a carriageway will be provided along with a footway and footway/cycleway, yet the Parameters Plan shows an area of 'Soft Landscaping' either side of the bridge which extends into the river itself. It should be confirmed whether this is the planting of Common Reed and, if it is, a more detailed plan should be provided showing the extent of the planting. - It is understood that the provision of the bridge forms part of the Phase 1 of the development. Detailed discussions will need to be held with the PLA concerning the exact timings of the bridge works and whether the River Cray will need to be closed temporarily to allow the bridge section to be put in place. - It is understood that surface water will be discharged to Dartford Creek. It should be clarified whether any new surface water outfalls are proposed, what the flow rates would be and whether any scour protection is required. - The applicant is reminded of the need for a River Works for all works that extend over Mean High Water. This includes the bridge, any surface water outfalls and any crane oversails. - Given the location of the development, it is recommended that a condition secures the provision of riparian life-saving equipment (such as grab chains, access ladders and life buoys) along the river edge to a standard recommended in the 1991 Hayes Report on the inquiry into river safety. - It is not clear whether any consideration has been given to the use of river transport during construction for the transport of waste and construction materials. A condition on any grant of planning permission should require the submission and approval of a report that seeks to maximise river transport with the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved report. - The PLA also recommends that a condition is imposed on any grant of planning permission requiring the submission and approval of external lighting. The details submitted should demonstrate how the lighting has been designed to minimise its impact on navigation and river ecology.

(18) Inland Waterways Association

- IWA has no objection to the majority of the proposed development. However, we are greatly concerned at the restricted navigable headroom created by not having a lifting span in the new viaduct which would prevent masted craft from accessing the upstream 400m of navigation. Measures of mitigation are required.

- It is understood that the IWA is still in discussion with the applicant with a view to resolving matters.

(19) Natural England

- Statutory nature conservation sites - no objection - Protected species - we have not assessed the application for impacts on protected species - Green Infrastructure - the proposed development is within an area which could benefit from enhanced green infrastructure provision.

Dartford and Crayford Creek Restoration Trust (DCCRT)

- The Trust objects to the impact that the access arrangements for this proposal will have on the navigability of the River Cray and resultant potential for riparian regeneration in the area. - Navigation from the Thames in Dartford Creek is already limited by the low bridge carrying Bob Dunn Way so that only non-masted craft are able to progress up- river. - The original proposed Rail Freight Interchange of 2004 presents no height limitation to masted craft and the Trust would prefer that this is retained as in the previously approved plan. If this cannot be achieved then the development should be conditional upon increasing the the current proposed clearances on the bridge and the provision of mooring pontoons downstream from the new bridge to enable sailing craft to moor and be safely de-masted before onward travel as well as other navigational improvements representative of the considerable savings they will be making in not providing a lifting structure. (20) Kent County Council (SUDS)

- The detailed drainage design should be developed to be fully in accordance with the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment. Suggested conditions are put forward requiring for details of a sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site, and that no infiltration of surface water drainage into the ground is permitted.

(21) Kent County Council (Public Rights of Way and Access)

- There appears to be scant information on how the footpath DB1 can be incorporated into the scheme and any specifications for improvement works.

(22) Environmental Health

Comments to be clarified.

NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATION

(23) Four letters of objection received, on the following grounds:

- Road delays due to an increased number of HGVs, decreasing journey speeds and adding to disruption on local roads; - Our already saturated roads will be unable to cope with an additional 1,150 HGVs and numerous other vehicles per day, particularly during periods of heavy congestion; - Loss of Green Belt land through the access road from Bob Dunn Way. - The land around the River Cray and Dart are part of the natural flood plains, and in a flood zone, according to Thames Water. Our natural environment is slowly being destroyed by mankind and, yet again, this is another example of our disregard for nature. Has the area been evaluated for protected species before it is destroyed? - The scheme is not readily feasible, and is unnecessary; - The infrastructure may not cope; - Presumably a new rail spur will have to be built, causing problems for freight trains using the new terminal.

RELEVANT POLICIES

(24) The Core Strategy, together with the Saved policies of the 1995 Local Plan, form the Dartford's development plan documents for the area and the application should be determined against these policies, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that for decision-making purposes Local Plan policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted prior to the publication of the NPPF.

(25) The Dartford Core Strategy was adopted in September 2011. The Council considers that the Core Strategy, together with the Saved policies of the 1995 Local Plan, are broadly consistent with the NPPF and that due weight should be given to relevant Development Plan policies, in accordance with the NPPF.

(26) The Council's emerging Development Policies Plan Document has undergone significant consultation and was recently considered at Examination. The Development Control Board resolved to apply policies DP1-DP8, DP10 to DP19 and DP21 to DP25 and to give appropriate weight to these in making decisions on planning applications. (27) As such, the following policies are relevant.

- Adopted Dartford Core Strategy 2011

- CS15 'Managing Transport Demand'; CS16 'Transport Investment' Saved Adopted Dartford Local Plan 1995

- T19, T20 and T21.

- Emerging Dartford Development Policies Local Plan 2015

- DP3 'Transport Impacts of Development'; DP4 'Transport Access and Design'

COMMENTS

Key Issues

(28) The main issues are:

i) The principle or appropriateness of the development, given its Green Belt location; ii) The effect on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) The effects of the proposal on the transport network from HGV and journey to work movements; iv) The effects of the proposal on air quality, the marshlands and biodiversity; v) If the proposal does constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt, whether 'very special circumstances' exist and have been demonstrated to outweigh the presumption against such development.

Green Belt

(29) The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that the government attaches great importance to the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 thereto states that 'inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.'

(30) Paragraph 88 states:

'When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.'

(31) Paragraph 89 comments that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, although paragraph 90 indicates that certain forms of development are not inappropriate provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

(32) The National Policy Statement for National Networks (NPS) states:

'Promoters of strategic rail freight interchanges may find that the only viable sites for meeting the need for regional strategic rail freight interchanges are on Green Belt land. Promoters need to recognise the special protection given to Green Belt land. The Secretary of State would have to be convinced, and promoters would need to demonstrate, very special circumstances to justify planning consent for inappropriate development in the Green Belt. (33) The proposal represents inappropriate development within the Green Belt and, by the nature of the proposal, would cause substantial harm to the Green Belt with the ensuing loss of openness and would cause harm to at least one of the five purposes, notably encroachment into the countryside. The applicant has proposed mitigation through the siting and landscaping to reduce the development's impact.

Traffic related Issues

(34) By way of the applicant's modelling and trip generation assessment Kent CC and Highways England are both agreed that considerable mitigation measures are required in respect of the resultant impacts from heavy freight traffic, particularly of Junction 1A and local highways around Dartford.

Freight Management

The applicant has, following discussions with DBC, LBB and KCC, prepared a revised and integrated Framework Employee Travel Plan and Freight Management Plan (FMP).

(35) The Travel & Freight Management Plan brings together items such as the shuttle bus service, cycle parking, cycle routes, pedestrian access and local bus services and would be coordinated by an on-site travel plan coordinator. This can be secured by way of condition and an annual monitoring report prepared. This way, the impact of light goods vehicles / private commuting vehicles on the local highways network will be reduced. However, it is also noted that - reflecting the proposed shift times - employee generated local traffic will not impact on the traditional morning peaks of 08.00-09.00 and 17.00-18.00.

(36) Greater clarity has now been provided over the role and responsibilities of the FMP/TP Co-ordinator to be appointed, and co-ordination between the role, operators and statutory authorities. However, given that the full build out of the SRFI is likely to extend well beyond the current suggested monitoring period in the revised FMP/TP of only 5 years, the traffic impact, potential bus patronage and the need for supportive measures are likely to increase as the build progresses. It is therefore advised that the monitoring period and relationship to the FMP (ie monitoring of traffic impact and associate trigger points for interventions) is extended beyond year 5 of the build programme.

(37) The Travel & Freight Management Plan will require a formal governance arrangement whereby the Borough Council, London Borough of Bexley and KCC Highways form part of a (minimum of quarterly) board and can input/shape interventions in terms of highways issues as the site is built out and occupied by future companies and this should also be ensured by way of a planning condition.

(38) The traffic impact on the local highway network has been projected using Transport for London's East London Highways Assignment Model (ELHAM) which spans the Howbury development study area. This is the most appropriate and up-to-date local traffic/highways model and is trusted in terms of having been thoroughly audited/validated. It should be noted that options are currently being explored for a new River Crossing and that ELHAM has been adapted to create a bespoke 'River Crossing Highways Assignment Model' (RXHAM).

(39) A 'reference year' of 2012 was acceptable to KCC and the model is fully audited and validated to the approval of all associated stakeholders. A forecast year' of 2031 was accepted by KCC in respect that it considered future local background growth in an area that will become increasingly busy over the next 15 years. It also reflects the fact that a facility such as this takes years to become fully occupied and fully operational after it is proposed to open in 2021. Traffic flows are reported in Passenger Car Units (PCUs). Cars and 'light goods vehicles' are recorded as 1.0 PCU unit. Heavy Good Vehicles are recorded as 2.0 PCU units.

Impact on Transport Network from increased HGV traffic and journey to work movements

(40) This proposal will see an increase in cars and light good vehicles from employees and associated service vehicles accessing the facility via the local road network. Over time, this will exacerbate existing queuing and congestion and is likely to see the biggest impact along the A206 (Bob Dunne Way), a road with an existing average (two-way) flow of approximately 30,000-31,000 vehicles over an average 24 hour period;

(41) For example, between 08:00-09:00 on the A206 (Bob Dunn Way) regular users will be familiar with an existing queue length of approximately 250m. Once the SRFI is fully operational, a similar queue would be expected to increase beyond 300m in length at any one point in time;

(42) Around 1,800 out of 2,500 employees are expected to drive to and from the location in any given 24hr period although many would be expected to car share. Projections (computer modelling) suggest that the SRFI will generate somewhere between 221 and 272 two-way car trips during the AM and PM peaks respectively, these cannot be controlled and an element of these will inevitable add to traffic levels in and around Dartford Town Centre, should an employee live in that direction or beyond;

(43) Across any 24 hour period, some 769 additional (two-way) HGV movements will be associated with the proposed SRFI facility which will see as much as a 23% increase in the volume of SRFI specific HGVs using roads such as the A206 (Bob Dunn Way) during AM peak hours or (approx.) 50% increase during the inter-peak hours (by 2031). This is generally to be expected as the majority of scheme related HGVs would use the A206 to access the Strategic Road Network;

(44) The existing River Crossing is either partially or completely closed, on average, around 300 times per year for 30 minutes or more, largely due to vehicle height restrictions, dangerous goods vehicles, accidents, breakdowns and the need to prevent excessive queuing / traffic inside the tunnels. Any new development in the immediate area would - of course - exacerbate a problem when an incident occured on the approach to the tunnels / extractions within the traffic management cell;

(45) Blocking back on the northbound approach to the river crossing directly impacts on the operation of Junction 1A. Vehicles waiting to travel northbound on the M25 typically queue beyond the end of the slip road and through the western roundabout of Junction 1A, which resultantly creates exit blocking to the arms of the western roundabout and in particular Bob Dunn Way. Queuing vehicles then make it difficult for vehicles to enter the roundabout and the Transport Assessment supporting this application observed the same;

(46) Typically, it can take between three to five hours for roads to clear following a closure. Inevitably, any increase in local light vehicle or HGV movements associated with new development will exacerbate local traffic congestion and lengthen traffic queues - particularly when there is an incident on the local or strategic road network;

(47) Since the removal of the original Dartford Crossing barriers and introduction of the 'free-flow' scheme, it is commonly acknowledged that traffic congestion on the local road network has deteriorated, particularly when there is an incident;

(48) There may be minor improvements that can be made to the existing arrangements relating to Junction 1A/'free-flow' system, but these are highly unlikely to have a significant impact on the local road network with respect to increasing capacity or the free flow of traffic, nor is it reasonable to suggest that the applicant should 'fix' existing network problems.

(49) It is critical that any future development related HGV (and other) vehicles are fully aware/updated as to restrictions and incidents at the river crossing and this will be achieved by methods incorporated within the Travel & Freight Management Plan.

(50) Officers recently attended a site visit/tour to the 'London Gateway' scheme in Essex so as to gain a better understanding of the operational/freight management aspects with respect to a similar freight facility elsewhere. (51) One particularly effective aspect in place at London Gateway was an online booking system which allocated 'time slots' for Heavy Goods Vehicles to book.

(52) The capacity used at London Gateway was 100 slots per hour. HGVs are given a one hour (e.g. 10-11am) slot to deliver in which they can be (up to) 20 mins early or late (so between 9.40 - 11.20). Anything outside of this time and they will be turned away.

(53) London Gateway management highlighted the importance of being strict with this time slot allocation. If a HGV was affected by congestion and knew it would miss its slot it could re-book a slot later in the day which would prevent the HGV waiting at the site. An example would be a HGV travelling from Sheffield to Howbury/Dartford, which got caught in congestion on the M1 and was certain it would miss its allocated slot.

(54) It would therefore 're-book' a slot for 3 hours later and take a rest stop on the M1 rather than turning up to Howbury and waiting). The slots per hour can be limited in the peak hour if necessary. A part of the future monitoring/toolkits and associated triggers for intervention action might therefore be to model the congestion at Junction 1A throughout the day to highlight the peak congestion hours and then reduce delivery slots in these hours accordingly. The applicant has (as of August 2016) agreed to consider restricting movements in the peak hour, so between 8am and 9am in the morning and 4-5pm late afternoon.

(55) London Gateway has an area to hold up to 48 HGVs, with scope for an additional 30 lorries. In simple terms, this 'holding area' is not dissimilar to the 'take a ticket' /queuing system employed at the post office or supermarket deli/meat counter - in this instance HGVs park up and then are notified via VMS signs when they can proceed to the docking station. This was a good way of preventing HGVs queuing back up the access road.

Impact on Dartford Town Centre

(56) There will be in an increase in traffic through Dartford Town Centre particularly when there are traffic incidents which occur at the existing Dartford River Crossing / northbound tunnel. In terms of HGV movements these are not easy to quantify and the Freight Management Plan will provide a form of control from the SRFI/impact on town centre which will be via Camera (ANPR Technology) Control on Burnham Road (the A2026);

(57) Fines would be levied on operators of Heavy Good Vehicles which were seen to leave the site and use the A2026 (and then East Hill) in an attempt to reach the M25 via Junction 1B. Revenue from any associated fines should be ring-fenced for reinvestment into the on-site Travel & Freight Management Plan. Similar systems have been implemented elsewhere in the UK and prove an effective deterrent to operators or drivers who do not adhere to the Route Management Plan engrained within the Freight Management Plan. This will hopefully offer Members a degree of confidence that a future Howbury Park SRFI would not add any additional HGV movements to the area in or around Dartford Town Centre;

(58) In terms of employee related (predominantly car movements) in the AM peak there is likely to be an increase of approx. 60 car movements between Crayford and Dartford reducing to approximately 40 car movements between Dartford and the bridge over the M25. In the PM peak the flows are approx. 70 movements to the west of Dartford and 100 to the east of Dartford. Within the town itself, these increases are distributed around the A226 to the north and south of the town centre, and the impact on the local highway network is not deemed to be severe and resultantly, would unlikely to be noticed by existing road users in terms of additional queuing or localised congestion;

(59) When cumulative two-way flows are considered in Dartford town centre, the most notable increase occurs along roads such as Home Gardens and East Hill, with 13% and 15% PCU increases respectively (in the PM peak). ANPR monitoring

(60) The applicant has put forward the following measures in this regard:

- Set up ANPR cameras at the agreed locations, together with supporting technology to record the data; - The precise thresholds and monitoring regimes can be set out in the final agreed FMP. HE should be involved to confirm that it is happy with the level of provision; - The fine for breaking the thresholds was suggested to HE at a rate of £500 per HGV, who did not raise objection

Highways England's view

(61) Following discussions between the applicant and HE, and then a subsequent meeting between the parties also attended by LBB, DBC and Kent County Council on 9th August 2016, HE made the following comments/ recommendations: - Peak hour HGV should be capped, by condition, if necessary. This was accepted in principle by Roxhill; - Concerns raised as to the potential of the site to operate, instead, as a road based development only. Roxhill confirmed that it is prepared to accept a condition that the terminal is completed before first occupation of the site; - There should be no HGV site bookings for the periods 7am - 10am and 4pm - 7pm. The principle is acceptable to Roxhill, but would prefer some relaxation during 'shoulder periods'; - Would like to see Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) monitoring for HGVs, for management purposes. Roxhill accepst the principle of this; - Real time information within and around the site should be provided. Agreed by Roxhill, and can be addressed by way of on-site management, and supplied through implementation of its Freight Management Plan (FMP); - Information is required on additional HGV parking to address storage and network incidents. Roxhill indicated that this is included in the site by widening the access road within the site for approximately 500m. - The demand, and potential queueing, for the intermodal terminal itself is a concern. Roxhill explained that there is unlikely to be train to HGV transfer of containers. Containers brought by train will be stored in the on-site buildings and then transferred to the HGVs; and - Overheight vehicles leaving the site and using J1A and the west Dartford Tunnel bore is a major concern. Roxhill responded that the operation is unlikely to generate overheight vehicles as all traffic is either containerised or in delivery articulated lorries. Nevertheless, the FMP would specifically address this point by directing overheight vehicles to use an alternative route via J1A then J1B or J2.

(62) HE, now, satisfied with the above measures, offers no objections to the proposal subject to a series of suggested planning conditions to be imposed on any permission granted.

Network Rail's view

(63) In Network Rail's case the key point here from a network perspective is that neither the current freight services in this area (the multiple daily bulk services nor the proposed quantum of freights serving Howbury Park are considered of sufficient scale to have any negative bearing on the achievement of a future extended Crossrail service operation.

(64) Network Rail sees the greater challenge will be developing an infrastructure and timetable capable of overlaying the Crossrail service frequency onto the existing passenger service and its operators associated intensive stock moves of stock on/off Slade Green depot.

(65) Network Rail indicates that before it formally engages with any scheme proponent, it needs to be satisfied of the network fit of a proposal. Its strategic planning team, who works to a 30 year time horizon have long endorsed this development with their full visibility of future freight & passenger service development. Such an endorsement will commence the GRIP process.

(66) Relating to the rail network, Transport for London (TFL) has an aspiration for higher frequency passenger services in the future to help meet existing demand and that which would be generated by the expected significant growth in the wider area and further along the rail lines. A potential extension of the Elizabeth Line using dedicated track throughout is amongst the options under consideration. The potential for this is currently being progressed by DBC officers in collaboration with the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, Gravesham BC, LB Bexley, the GLA and TFL.

Shuttle Bus service (journeys to and from work)

(67) The applicant is proposing the funding of a Shuttle bus service through the S106 Agreement. This would contribute towards the modal shift and delivery of the objectives contained in the Travel Plan. Whilst some flexibility in determining the routes based on service demand is acknowledged it is essential that there be full confidence that such a service, free for employees, can and will be delivered at first occupation, in accordance with details to be agreed in the Travel Plan.

(68) The shuttle bus should serve both and Burnham Road, enabling local residents to access the site easily. The shuttle bus should serve both Dartford railway station and Burnham Road, enabling local residents to access the site easily.

(69) The site is also served well served by local bus services. Approximately 15 buses currently operate during the peak hours within an eight minute walk from the proposed site. Off-peak bus services also operate and will serve the anticipated three-shift working pattern, with employees arriving/departing between 05:00 - 07:00, 13:00 - 15:00 and 21:00 - 23:00. Possible future Crossrail use/land safeguarding issues have been factored in to the proposed layout/alignment of the development.

(70) Although the travel details of employees cannot be determined until the site becomes operational, failure to have a shuttle bus available from the opening day will lead to additional car use, and such behaviours by new staff may prove difficult to modify in the future. The level of detail to be provided at determination stage should therefore provide sufficient clarity on the level and type of provision that will be available, based upon a prediction of likely usage/demand. It is advised that the following details are provided in relation to the shuttle bus provision within the final agreed Travel Plan:

- Details of a route(s) for the buses that links the Howbury SRFI site with Slade Green and Dartford railway stations, and any other key local transport interchanges, with a legible map; - Production of a framework timetable which would support the broad shift patterns regularly adopted by the types of company likely to come forward as part of the development; and - Provision of the shuttle bus service must be costed and clearly defined in table 10.1 (action plan) of the Travel Plan.

Other Effects

Biodiversity

(71) Outside the area of the site under DBC's control it occupies part of a Borough Grade 1 Site of Importance for Nature Conservation, known as Crayford Landfill Area & Howbury Grange, as identified through the adopted procedures for London, whilst the northern boundary of the site abuts Crayford Marshes, a site of Metropolitan Importance for nature conservation. This is an area of grazing marsh, valuable for a wide range of uncommon flora and fauna. (72) The proposed development would cause the direct loss of a sizeable area of the existing SINC, reducing the area of grassland and habitats and decreasing the availability of foraging birds and invertebrates utilising the adjacent Crayford Marshes.

(73) The applicant has submitted a Marshes Management Plan and associated planning obligations in this regard. Given the marshes' location LBB is addressing this aspect of the scheme. Dartford's emerging DPP Policy DP25 comments that development located within close proximity to designated sites, or with likely effects on them, should demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely impact on the features of the site that define its value or ecological pathways to the site.

(74) On this issue the previous appeal Inspector noted that, in recognition of the size and nature of the site, impacts would arise. However, he concluded that the impacts would be limited and would be adequately offset by the mitigation measures proposed. Such measures are again put forward.

(75) The previous Inspector also noted that no statutory sites of nature conservation or biodiversity interests would be affected, and this was at the time broadly accepted by Natural England, the Environment Agency and the London Wildlife Trust.

River Cray

(76) There is an outstanding issue regarding the navigation of the River Cray, but it appears that there have been ongoing discussions between the PLA, the IWA, the DCCRT and the applicant in order that the matter might be resolved.

Emission Reductions

(77) With regard to the GLA’s comments regarding carbon emissions the applicant is willing to accept a planning condition requiring the agreement of details to incorporate a sufficient quantity of photovoltaic panels.

Air Quality

(78) The applicant comments that the SRFI, once fully operational, has the potential to remove a substantial amount of HGV loads per day from the road network and 59.5 million km of long distance lorry traffic per annum, reducing emissions from freight transport by in excess of 40,000 tonnes of CO2.

(79) The A282 (Dartford Tunnel approach road) was declared an Air Quality Management Area in 2001, when nitrogen dioxide levels were found to be high. Over the past 15 years, despite the designation, measured nitrogen dioxide levels close to the carriageway have not shown any significant improvement.

(80) The submitted Environmental Statement (ES) identifies that the main air quality impacts likely to arise during the construction phase are related to dust and particulate matter generated by site clearance, construction and landscaping.

(81) In terms of impacts on air quality due to emissions from construction vehicles and non-road mobile machinery the nearest sensitive receptors to the site access are residential properties on Burnham Road. The nearest property is approximately 40m from the Bob Dunn Way/Burnham Road roundabout. At this distance it is unlikely that construction traffic would have substantial influence on pollutant concentrations at this receptor. Other sensitive residential receptors are situated along Bob Dunn Way, in particular properties on Cornwall Road and Halcrow Avenue near the Marsh Street roundabout which are within 30m of the main route for construction traffic.

(82) The ES proposes a range of construction mitigation measures to minimise the risk of unmitigated dust and other impacts. These include a Construction Logistics Plan to manage the sustainable delivery of goods and materials, and using water-assisted dust sweepers on the access roads and local roads, to remove, as necessary any material tracked out of the site. It is advised that the following issues are addressed within the Plan:

- Operatives should be made aware which routes apply to their journey during periods of congestion at Junction 1A, with associated on-site signage where appropriate, possibly VMS for westbound traffic during periods of congestion at the junction; - Responsiveness to traffic conditions on the M25/A282 should be demonstrated, including potential restrictions on movements during peak periods or incidents on the strategic road networks. This area is particularly sensitive to any localised adverse traffic event and it takes very little to seriously impact on the entire surrounding area(s), not least Dartford Town Centre and 'The Bridge' residential area; - The construction traffic impact based on the suggested phasing of the development, with an indicative figure of 80 HGV movements and 300 non HGV movements in the peak hours quoted in the Transport Assessment should be built into the Plan with detailed calculations and appropriate mitigation, if necessary; - Details on work related road risk (WRRR) mitigation including the use of freight operators who are accredited with the Fleet Operator Recognition Scheme (FORS) should be put forward

Very Special Circumstances

Need for a SRFI and Alternative Sites

(83) The applicant has set out a 'very special circumstances' case in line with those which were used to justify the previous proposal which were, in 2007, accepted by both the appointed Inspector and the Secretary of State to outweigh the identified harm.

(84) There is a recognised need for SRFI development to meet the government's growth agenda, and this is set out in the National Policy Statement on National Networks (NPS). Policy 6.15 of the London Plan is supportive of SRFI and recognises that these may need to be located within the Green Belt, due to their scale.

(85) The applicant has prepared an Alternative Sites Assessment (ASA) which examines whether the proposal could be accommodated on sites which do not fall within the Green Belt, or any other Green Belt site where they may be less harmful than is the case here.

(86) The previous ASAs undertaken for the previous 2004 proposal demonstrated a lack of alternative SRFI development opportunities in and around London and the South East. The assessments were accepted by the appeal Inspector and the Secretary of State who commonly concluded that there were no viable alternative sites for a SRFI. Since this time, policy guidance in the form of the National Policy Statement has established a need for SRFI development.

(87) The results of the new ASA, where potential sites within a large arc around south and east London were evaluated against key SRFI site criteria, demonstrates a lack of such opportunities. All sites previously assessed were re-appraised, and for many locations the constraints remain in place. For others, sites that were previously short-listed for further assessment through changed circumstances (such as the proposed Paramount Leisure Park at Swanscombe, or a site at Hollingbourne) are no longer considered to represent future SRFI opportunities.

(88) The latest ASA concludes that there are no alternative locations that have a realistic potential to function as an SRFI. In the circumstances, and on the considered basis that a smaller SRFI or the disaggregation of the SRFI function, would compromise the efficiency of the operations, the applicant has proceeded. Support is provided by the NPS, and the approach was agreed by way of the 2007 decision. Economic Development & Regeneration

(89) The applicant's Environmental Statement sets out the socio-economic benefits of the scheme across RB Greenwich, LBB and DBC. The estimated economic benefits include:

- The direct creation of 1,966 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) jobs, which may be of significant importance to local residents where unemployment levels are relatively higher; - A capital investment of some £125 million in the local area; - Business rates with a potential annual receipt of £2.5 million, although this would be split between DBC and LBB; - Gross Value Added (ie contribution to the economy) of around £49.5 million each year; - Significant employment opportunities through construction works; - Enhancing the profile and image of the , as a major focus for the distribution sector. - It represents a major new employment opportunity close to areas of growth in Dartford borough. This would support the growth strategy.

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS

(90) Regulation 122(2) provides that a planning obligation can only constitute a reason for granting consent if the obligation is:

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; (b) directly related to the development; and (c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

(91) The applicant has agreed to the following planning obligations by way of entering into a S106 legal agreement:

- Junction 1A Contribution of £800,000 towards measures for improving traffic circulation: - Signage Strategy Contribution of £350,000; - Measures to implement, monitor and enforce the Freight Management and Travel Plans, including the employment of persons to this effect; - Shuttle Bus Cost - £160,000 per annum; - Cycle/ footpath Contribution; - Legible London Signage Contribution and 'Dartford Wayfinding'.

(92) Other obligations, most notably towards the Management of the Crayford Marshes and a sum of £450,000 will be paid to LBB.

(93) A S278 Agreement under the Highways Act is also proposed in respect of a proposed cycle/pedestrian toucan crossing close to the roundabout junction at Burnham Road and Bob Dunn Way.

FINANCIAL BENEFITS

(94) Under section 75ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act officer reports to the Development Control Board are required to include a list of 'financial benefits' which are likely to be obtained by the authority as a result of the development. A 'financial benefit' must be recorded regardless of whether it is material to the Council's decision. Government advice is that the decision maker should consider whether it is a material consideration in the consideration of a planning application.

(95) In this particular instance no CIL would be payable to DBC. The financial benefits in this case can therefore be related the economic benefits arising. HUMAN RIGHTS IMPLICATIONS

(96) I have considered the application in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am satisfied that my analysis of the issues in this case and my consequent recommendation are compatible with the Act.

PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITY DUTY

(97) Due regard has been had to the Public Sector Equality Duty, as set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It is considered that the application proposals would not undermine objectives of the Duty.

CONCLUSIONS

(98) The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause substantial harm to it. To comply with Green Belt policy the proposal cannot overcome the conflict with both local and national Green Belt policies unless very special circumstances exist.

(99) The proposal would, not least due to its size, would also cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. However, in terms of transport impacts both Highways England and Network Rail are satisfied that the proposal can operate satisfactorily subject, in particular to, to conditions restricting the number of peak period freight movements, the tracking of HGV movements by way of ANPR technology and a signage strategy to keep the freight traffic away from lesser roads and Dartford town centre. To this end, and also with regard to the proposal's impact on Junction 1A Kent CC (Highways) and DBC have been in regular touch with the applicant as regards mitigation measures and financial contributions in this regard.

(100) The government's NPS has established a particular need in areas around London for SRFI provision, but there is an apparent shortage of suitable sites, which was highlighted at the 2007 local inquiry when a similar outline proposal was successfully appealed, although it was never furthered.

(101) Other benefits involve economic regeneration and job creation and, in weighing up the balance, the benefits arising are considered to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other resultant harm highlighted, subject to mitigation. Having also had regard to the issues framed at the previous appeal, and its outcome, it is concluded that very special circumstances have been demonstrated. The proposal is also not inconsistent with the development plan and planning permission is recommended.

RECOMMENDATION:

Grant planning permission,subject to the satisfactory completion of a S106 Agreement, the Heads of Terms of which are set out earlier in this report under ‘Planning Obligations’, and subject to the following conditions:

(Conditions to follow) y ra C k e er e iv r [ R C

Dartford Marshes

AY W N N U D B BO

Dartford Marshes

Y A W N N U D B O B

r Sewe Main Kent West

r e iv R m Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey map with the peramission of the controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown Copyright. 2013 h Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright andn may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Dartford Borough Council 100025870 2013 ta S

Application No:: 15/01743/OUT

Address : Roundabout Junction Bob Dunn Way & Thames Road (Howbury Park)

Date: 28 October 2016 Scale: Not to Scale