Agenda item

To consider the joint report of the Strategic Director (Operations and Commercial) and Head of Planning, Regeneration and Development (to follow).

It is expected that this document will be published on 5 February 2021.

The Strategic Director (Operations and Commercial) and the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Development presented the report setting out the proposed response to the engagement by the Department for Transport on proposals to establish an Inland Border Control Facility at the White Cliffs Business Park.

Members were advised that the two addendum reports issued had made amendments to both the proposed executive response and the response of the planning authority reflecting the evolving process of the engagement.

The development proposals for the Inland Border Control Facility were being made under the provisions of a Special Development Order, in this instance under the Town and Country Planning (Border Facilities and Infrastructure) (EU Exit) (England) Special Development Order 2020, which was laid before Parliament on 3 September 2020 and came into effect on 24 September 2020. The Order made provision for the granting of temporary approval to government departments to provide facilities (including associated temporary facilities and infrastructure) in specified local authority areas for the stationing and processing of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) entering or leaving the UK. However, under the Order these facilities had to cease operation by 31 December 2025.

The use of the Special Development Order also meant that in contrast to other development proposals within the district, the powers that the Council could exercise as the local planning authority did not apply. Instead, the Council (both as the council and as the local planning authority) was classified as an engagement party within the Special Development Order process.

The proposed executive response, as set out in the amended report, was grouped into four themes as followed:

·         Traffic management and the impact on the growth agenda

·         Impact on local residents and the environment

·         Impact of development on Dover Fastrack and local businesses

·         Support for local economic growth

The Council was asked to endorse the proposed response to the engagement process. It was noted that engagement was an on-going process and that the submission of a response was not expected to be the end of the Council’s engagement with the Department for Transport on the matter.

The Head of Planning, Regeneration and Development presented the proposed response to the engagement from the Council as the local planning authority, as set out in Appendix 3 of the report and amended by the update paper. The report proposed a number of recommendations for amendments to the scheme, including a number of mitigations, and requests for further information to be provided.

The Leader of the Council, Councillor T J Bartlett, advised that as part of a number of meetings with the Department for Transport there had been a number of positive changes in response to concerns raised by the Council. These included a new access point, a smaller number of vehicles to be accommodated on the site, a bigger buffer zone for residents of Guston and improved biodiversity.

The Leader of the Council stated that there was still a need for further mitigations concerning noise, traffic, light pollution and the environment as well as improvements to the local road network. The dualling of the A2 and works to the Whitfield and Duke of York roundabouts was a vital part of any improvements to the road network.

In moving the recommendations set out in the report the Leader of the Council advised that he reserved the right to make alterations to the final executive response but that if he did so he would inform Members.

Councillor N S Kenton seconded the proposals moved by the Leader of the Council.

The members of the Council discussed the proposed responses and a number of views were expressed both in support and opposition to them as follows:

·         To welcome the employment that would be created by the Inland Border Control Facility

·         That the decision was being made in the best interests of the country as a whole

·         To question whether the location proposed for the Inland Border Control Facility was the most appropriate and raised concerns over the potential traffic impact at the Duke of York and Whitfield roundabouts if traffic was not managed properly

·         To note that the proposed location had been designated as an employment site for the last 20 years

·         That 100 jobs would be created at the Council (as the Port Health authority) and other agencies

·         That the traffic issues affecting the district were long term ones and that the Inland Border Control Facility offered the opportunity to address these at the highest levels in government

·         That by supporting the proposals it sent a message to government that the Council was a local authority that they could do business with in the future

·         The importance of seeing the traffic management plans

·         The need to engage with the Department for Transport constructively to try and influence areas of local concern

·         The need to upgrade the sliproads to current design standards

·         The need to avoid HGVs queuing on the A2 and Jubilee Way

·         The need to ensure traffic could still flow at the Duke of York roundabout or risk Deal and Walmer becoming cut off from Dover

·         The need to upgrade the A2 from Lydden to the Dover Docks

·         The potential impact on residents at Aycliffe and the need to monitor the use of Operation TAP

·         To express the view that the facility was in the wrong location

·         To question the impact on the Dover Fastrack project and the potential for HGVs to block access around Honeywood Parkway

·         To express concern over the lack of detailed information available to Members and that the Department for Transport had prevented officers from sharing some of the information with Members

·         To point out that the traffic management facility at Manston would close prior to the Whitfield Inland Border Control Facility opening and question where this traffic would go in its absence

·         To question whether access to the North Downs Way would be preserved during works

·         To welcome the planning authority response as it addressed some of the concerns raised by local residents

·         To express concerns about the alignment of the entry/exit point

·         To acknowledge that the proposals had attempted to address concerns of local residents although there was still further work to be done

·         To raise concerns over the impact on the health and welfare of residents in Guston and the need for the Department for Transport to compensate for any impact on property prices

·         To question the assumptions made by the Department for Transport concerning trader readiness in July and the impact of bad weather conditions in the channel on freight flows.

·         To raise concerns over the impact on tourism on the North Downs Way

It was moved by Councillor T J Bartlett, duly seconded by Councillor N S Kenton, and

RESOLVED: That having been appraised of the details of the proposal by the Department for Transport (DfT) to create an additional Inland Border Facility (IBF) in Kent, on a 37.6 hectares site at the White Cliffs Business Park, Dover, the Council

(a)  Notes that the response to the engagement process was a matter for the Executive to determine.

(b)  That the proposed response to the engagement process as set out in the report, subject to the amendments set out in the supplementary papers, be endorsed.

(Councillors S H Beer and H M Williams were not present at the meeting when the vote was held.)