Port expansion at Fort Road, Tilbury

What was proposed

The application sought hybrid permission for industrial, storage and port-related uses, with new roads, rail, drainage, utilities and ecological works.

“PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application, comprising (1) in the Outline element the following phased development: B2 General Industrial and B8 Storage & Distribution including external storage and ancillary offices, Port-related uses including general haulier parking and a CMAT (Construction Materials and Aggregates Terminal); AND (2) in the Full element the following enabling infrastructure and other works: access and Port estate roads, a rail terminal connecting to the…”

“The hybrid application seeks full consent for enabling works (estate roads/access, rail terminal linking to Tilbury2, land re-grading/development platforms, utilities, drainage, ecological mitigation) and outline consent for phased B2/B8 and port-related uses, including provision for a single CMAT (Construction Materials and Aggregates Terminal).”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 57.9-hectare site lies beside Tilbury2, the River Thames, the railway and the Lower Thames Crossing corridor.

“The site – ‘Tilbury3’ as named by the applicant, covers 57.9 hectares and comprises a mix of previously industrialised land and a large portion of the site is in designated Metropolitan Green Belt. It is bounded by the railway line to the north, a National Grid sub-station to the immediate north, grassland and fields to the east, Tilbury2 to the west, and the River Thames to the south. The permitted and committed Lower Thames…”

“Crossing (LTC) is located to the east of the application site with part of the LTC boundary overlapping the application site for construction purposes.”

Officer report

Earlier site history

The site has a history of power station, ash disposal, landfill, port expansion and temporary external storage permissions.

“19/01278/DCOAPP Application by Port of Tilbury London Limited pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 1 (3) of the Port of Tilbury (Expansion) Order 2019 for the approval of details of the external materials to be used in the construction of (a) the proposed ancillary buildings constructed as part of Work No. 3 (d) and (b) the proposed ancillary buildings constructed as part of Work No. 5 (c).”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the site Grey Belt and found the proposal acceptable because of port need, economic benefits and secured environmental mitigation.

“The proposal is considered to be appropriate Grey Belt development in accordance with NPPF paragraph 155 as it, (a) utilises Grey Belt land without undermining the continued function of surrounding Green Belt; (b) responds to a demonstrable national and local need for port-related employment and freight capacity; and (c) is located in a highly sustainable position within an established multimodal transport network already designed to accommodate heavy freight movements.”

“Even if the land were considered not to be appropriate Grey Belt development in policy terms, officers are satisfied that clear and compelling Very Special Circumstances (VSCs) exist. The proposal is essential to delivering nationally significant port infrastructure, directly supported by the National Policy Statement for Ports and the Thames Freeport designation, and responds to a demonstrable, Government-recognised support for additional port capacity and multi-modal…”

Officer report

Who spoke and answered questions

The applicant spoke about habitat compensation, engagement and natural habitat capacity, while officers answered questions about funding, roads, traffic and building height.

What members debated

Members welcomed employment benefits but expressed concern about wildlife and asked about habitat loss, roads, the Lower Thames Crossing and building height.

“Members queried whether the company has had any engagement with the Lower Thames Crossing and has any mitigation with the surrounding roads…”

“Some Members welcomed the application stating that they liked the idea of more employment in the area and it was good to see a thriving area. Some Members expressed concern regarding wildlife.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The recommendation was approved, subject to Natural England consultation, consideration of the response, a legal agreement and required notifications.

“the Council consulting Natural England on the Council’s adopted HRA within 7 days of this Committee, giving 28 days for Natural England to respond; and…”

“the Council considering Natural England’s response (unless there is no response within that 28 day period), consulting the applicant if it considers necessary on that response, and producing (within 28 days of receiving a response from Natural England) a supplementary report to set out its position fully under Regulation 63 of the Habitats Regulations having regard to those submissions, the shadow HRA, and the submissions made by consultees to date on the application…”

Minutes