Campaigners back MPs' call for national approach on port decisions

13 November 2003

Portswatch, a new consortium of eight environmental and transport NGOs, has welcomed today's report by the House of Common's Transport Committee which criticises Government strategy towards new ports and calls for:

• decisions on container ports to be based on examination of all alternatives currently in the planning system in order to select the least damaging proposal [1];
• a Government forecast of UK capacity needed for container ports [2];
• greater integration in the national transport infrastructure [3];
• no reduction to rights of objectors in the planning process [4];
• decisions on ports to be taken at an integrated national rather than individual level [5];

This report also recognises that the Government lacks any long-term vision for the UK ports industry - particularly deep sea container ports - and that it has failed to develop a strategic planning framework that assesses and, where necessary, meets demand as it has for other transport sectors.

The Government's White Paper, Modern Ports: a UK Policy is shown to be neither a strategy nor a policy, but rather a long list of questions which the Government chooses not to answer. The Transport Committee, along with PortsWatch, now demands those answers.

Mary Edwards, regional campaigner for Friends of the Earth said: "We are delighted that the Transport Committee shares our concerns about the way in which the important decisions on container ports are being handled by this Government, and has outlined some of the ways forward. The Government must impose a moratorium on building any new ports, including the four applications currently under consideration, until it develops a national ports strategy."

Duncan Huggett, senior policy officer, RSPB said: "At last, someone has seen sense. The Transport Select Committee has outlined a framework which should help ensure the sustainable development of deep sea container ports in the UK. Government must take heed. They are legally required to give full consideration to all four current proposals already in the planning system and, based on a sound assessment of the need for further port capacity, decide which - if any - is the best, environmentally, socially and economically."

Dr Huggett continued: "The time has come for Government to stop ducking the issues and to implement the Select Committee's recommendations. We need ports - but not at any price."

Notes:

[1-5] are extracts from the Transport Committee's Ninth Report of the 2002-03 Session, on Ports (HC 783-I):

[1] On this basis, the Secretary of State must examine all alternative plans for meeting predicted container port demand currently in the planning system in order to select the least damaging proposal or proposals which meet the identified need (para 151)

[2] Although Government appears to accept that capacity planning and forecasting is essential to any integrated transport strategy, it is not prepared to be pro-active in this area (para 92) It is necessary to know how much additional capacity is needed.The Government must undertake such forecasts to ensure adequate port planning at a national level. (para 96)

[3] Operation of a port is dependent on intermodal links, which must form part of any UK ports policy.(para 99) A more comprehensive strategic framework is required to ensure the integration of port development into a sustainable transport strategy to encourage environmental benefits (para 136)

[4] We welcome these attempts to improve the efficiency of the planning process, without reducing the rights of objectors. (para 141)

[5] The government intends to set out a clear framework to guide the aviation industry in its proposals for new airport capacity. We do not see why it cannot take a similar approach for ports. There are compelling arguments for planning at an integrated national rather than individual level. (para 154)

[6] The four port applications are:

Dibden Bay:

In the Southampton Bay Special Protection Area (an EU designation) and a Site of Special Scientific Interest.

Holds more than 50,000 waterfowl in winter, and in summer is an internationally important site designated for five breeding species: Mediterranean gull, Sandwich tern, common tern, little tern, roseate tern - and four migrant species: dark-bellied Brent geese, teal, ringed plover, black-tailed godwit. Loss of 76 hectares of inter-tidal habitat, 240 hectares of grassland.

Quality of Life Issues

• Traffic generation (per day): 4,700 vehicle movements, 48 train movements
• Air, noise, water, light pollution
• Clear views from Southampton, tranquility

The public inquiry has finished and the Inspector's report has been sent to the Department for Transport.

The London Gateway (Shell Haven), Essex:

Adjacent to the Thames Estuary and Marshes Special Protection Area and a Site of Special Scientific Interest. An internationally important site for avocets, hen harriers and ringed plovers and holds more than 33,000 wintering waterfowl. Loss of 25 ha of undesignated and changes to approximately 60 ha of designated inter-tidal habitat.

Quality of Life Issues

• Traffic generation (per day): 11,992 vehicle movements, 60 train movements
• Air, noise, water, light pollution
• Loss of open green space, wildlife and tranquility

The public inquiry has finished and the Inspector's report is expected in February, 2004.

Bathside Bay, Harwich, Essex:

Proposed as an extension to Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area and is a recently notified Site of Special Scientific Interest: More than 65,000 wintering waterfowl; internationally important for nine species, including black-tailed godwit, dunlin, redshank, grey plover, ringed plover. Loss of 69 hectares of notified inter-tidal habitat.

Quality of Life Issues

• Traffic generation (per day): 4,170 vehicle movements; 8-12 train movements
• Air, noise, water, light pollution
• Loss of recreational space, wildlife and tranquility

No date has been announced for the public inquiry.

Felixstowe South, Suffolk:

This development is broadly comparable to Bathside Bay in size, e.g. 910m (additional) quay and 13 quayside cranes. It is a redevelopment of an existing port facility, which would be likely to lead to the loss of 28 hectares of sub-tidal habitat due to increased dredging.

[7] Portswatch Joint Statement launched November 11, 2003:

PortsWatch is a new campaigning network that has been established by a group of leading national environmental NGOs to prevent the destruction of sensitive coastal areas, the overburdening of landside transport infrastructure, and the negative impacts upon related communities caused by the major deep sea container port developments now being proposed.

The founding members include Campaign to Protect Rural England (East of England) (CPRE), Friends of the Earth, Marine Conservation Society (MCS), Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Transport 2000 (T2000), Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS), Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT), and the Wildlife Trusts.

Why PortsWatch?
It is generally recognised that ports are essential to the UK economy and that they have become busier over the last 15 years. But it is also recognised that they bring with them significant local environmental and ecological impacts, and that the traffic they generate adds to congestion and pollution on already overstretched road and rail networks locally, regionally and nationally.

Why no Government ports strategy?
Despite their major economic, transport and environmental effects, the provision of port capacity in the UK is wholly market driven. There is no long-term strategic planning to assess and/or meet demand. Consequently, port expansion proposals have emerged from the private sector and are to be judged on their individual merits. Furthermore, there is no framework which will determine how the transport, environmental and economic implications can best be managed.

In this planning vacuum, the private sector has brought forward proposals for three new superports located in the South East and East of England at Dibden Bay, on the edge of The New Forest in Hampshire, London Gateway (Shell Haven) in Essex and at Bathside Bay, Harwich, also in Essex. A further expansion at Felixstowe South is also being proposed.

The risks are great. The strategy and policy guidance are nonexistent. The pressure is growing. The need for action to save our coasts from destruction is urgent.

PortsWatch wants a moratorium on decisions by the Secretary of State on all proposed deep sea container port developments including Dibden Bay, London Gateway and Bathside Bay until:

• a methodology for determining the possible need for greater port capacity has been widely agreed
• it is demonstrated that the best use is being made of existing ports
• a national spatial strategy has been developed to indicate suitable/preferred and environmentally responsible locations for major port developments
• the concept of 'environmental footprinting' of ports and their associated infrastructure is used to make decisions about proposed port developments
• demand management techniques have been introduced to promote short sea and coastal shipping in order to decrease over-concentration on ports in the South East and East of England and their associated landside transport infrastructure
• an assessment of how port developments contribute to meeting integrated transport objectives has been completed.

Portswatch wants the government to make a decision on port development 'in the round' giving full weight to the environment and the principles of sustainable development in all decisions on new ports and port extensions.

More press releases >

© 2004, Portswatch, info@portswatch.org.uk