Health Impact Assessment:
Making the Difference
Workshop 2
Chair: Martin Birley
Lessons from Thurrock PCT’s HIA of London
Gateway Development 2002/2003
Adapted from slides by
Dr Kishor Padki, Director of Public Health, Thurrock PCT
Dr Adrian Smith, Sp Reg in PH Medicine
Ben Cave
5th April 2006
www.caveconsult.co.uk
London Gateway proposal
• Joint development by P&O and
Shell
• Redevelopment of ex-oil refinery
site on N.Thames riverside into
large freight port (411 hectares)
and landside commercial
development (10.1 million ft2).
• Upgrading local transport links
(road and rail links to M25)
• Creation of 16,000 new, and
10,000 indirect jobs
London Gateway … process
P&O Steam Navigation
Company & Shell UK
submitted three
planning applications
to Thurrock Council in
January 2002.
• Outline Planning
Application
• Harbour
Empowerment Order
• Transport & Works
Act Order
First contact for health stakeholders
• Thurrock PCT contacted by Thurrock Council for
comment (April 2002).
• Screening HIA conducted by public health
department within the PCT, identifying
– Wide range of potential health impacts
– Clear requirement for comprehensive HIA
– Limited local and regional capacity to conduct such work
What happened next …
• P&O/Shell appealed against non-determination of
duplicate proposal in May 2002.
• Request for public inquiry agreed by ODPM (July
2002)
• Date for public inquiry set: January 2003
Second contact for the health
stakeholders
• PCT contacted by planning inspectorate to request
participation in public inquiry (August 2002).
• Options
– Part 1 or Part 2 objector?
– Verbal or written submission?
– Which topic area?
• PCT opted for part 2 written submission and oral
evidence under ‘other’ topic areas.
HIA process
• Board briefing and approval of work
programme and timetable
• Considering timescale:
– London Gateway Group
– Thurrock Council’s Public consultation
• Legal advice for inquiry representation
Preparing a written submission
• Comprehensive HIA/HSIA began in September 2002, for
submission in February 2003, consisting:
– Literature reviews
– Extraction of data from Environmental Statements (3 updates)
– Quantitative modelling of impact and certainty.
• The HIA looked at …
– air quality, road and occupational accidents, job quality and
employment, visual effects, ground contamination and noise impacts
• The HSIA looked at expected health service demand.
Barriers to written submission
•
•
•
•
•
Short time scale
Weak local and regional expertise and support
Lack of robust and validated HIA methods
Vast quantity of information to sift
Variable level of support by Stakeholders in obtaining
bespoke data
• Developers obliged to assess all environmental
impacts, but not health impacts.
Negotiations
• Technical working groups
• PCT Executive held a meeting with
appellants
• PCT/Thurrock Council negotiated to
include health gain in Section 106
agreements
Barriers to negotiation
• Weak legislative arrangements to secure
health service gains from developers in non
housing developments (section 106
agreements)
• No legal accountability upon developers to
consider impacts upon wider health
• Discussions limited to on-site land capital,
having little relevance to wider primary care
needs.
Recommendations
• Developers to provide comprehensive occupational
health service to all employees
• Consider establishing multi agency London Gateway
Health Impact group to maximise health benefits.
• Consider section 106 planning obligation for primary
care modernisation
• Impose conditions to prevent detrimental effects.
Evidence …
Written submission
• Health Impact Assessment
• Primary Healthcare Impact Assessment
Oral evidence
• given to the Inquiry in July 2003 …
Lessons learnt
• Plan HIA as soon as the need is identified, with attention to the
considerable resource requirements.
• Use the technical working group process where possible – aim to
resolve objections before the verbal evidence.
• Try to influence inquiry timetable to get unresolved health issues
heard (consider being part 1 objector)
• Ensure that existing legal frameworks for securing NHS planning
gains are robust.
• What exactly do you want out of the planning inquiry?
• Consider legal representation …
Ben Cave
PO Box 220
Brighton, BN2 3WJ
T 0870 850 4947
E ben.cave@caveconsult.co.uk
7th International Health Impact
Assessment Conference
Health Impact Assessment:
Making the Difference
Supported by: