Hold fire on ports decision, says new group

12 November 2003

Campaigners are today calling for a moratorium on plans to build new and environmentally damaging deep sea container ports - two days before a government committee reports on port development.

Portswatch, a consortium of eight environmental and transport NGOs, says the government has yet to prove that more ports are needed or say where they should go if they are.

The alliance wants a full investigation into existing potential at ports and is urging government to consider overall demand at a national level rather than assessing each new port application individually. This would limit damage to sensitive wildlife sites and disruption to local communities.

There are currently four proposals for major new ports, either at the planning stage or awaiting a decision by ministers.

Duncan Huggett, senior policy advisor at the RSPB said: "It is utterly bizarre that the government has no overview and instead is looking at proposals one at a time. After all, they have an overview for roads, housing, aggregates and airport - why not for ports, which are the most important form of transport for imports and exports.

"Internationally protected wildlife sites will be lost if these applications are approved. The government does not even know how many container ships we need room for and only when that is known can ministers decide on new port applications. Instead of blindly pouring concrete, the government should be looking at all the proposals and asking whether existing ports can be adapted instead."

Mary Edwards, regional campaigner at Friends of the Earth added: "We are not opposed to economic development, we are just concerned that piecemeal developments will cause needless destruction of our coasts. This will affect people as much as wildlife as most new port proposals are in the already overheated South East and East of England. If all of the current proposals were given permission there would be gross overcapacity leading to unnecessary environmental destruction. We are calling on the government to go back to the drawing board and produce a real national ports strategy."

The Portswatch call comes before the Transport Sub-Committee publishes its report into port development this Thursday. The Portswatch groups says the need for more ports is not proven and that port applications should be considered together because the granting of one may mean no others are needed.

Notes

Portswatch was set up earlier this year to prevent the destruction of sensitive coastal areas. Other members are the Campaign to Protect Rural England (East England), the Marine Conservation Society, Transport 2000, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and Wildlife Trusts.

The Transport Committee's report will be published at 11am on Thursday November 13 in Committee Room 16. Embargoed copies are available from the Committee Office, 7 Millbank.

The Committee looked at the contribution of major ports to the UK economy, safety, environmental and regulatory issues associated with ports and government documents on port development.

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 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 and changes to around 90 hectares of inter-tidal and sub-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

Bathside Bay, Harwich, Essex:

Proposed as an extension to Stour and Orwell Estuaries Special Protection Area and is a recently designated 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 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

Felixstowe South, Suffolk:

This development is broadly comparable to Bathside Bay in size, e.g. 910m quay; 13 quayside cranes; 1.6m TEUs per annum. 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.

• The UK's 163 estuaries support more than 2.3m birds and other wildlife. That includes more than 40 per cent of all wading birds and four per cent of all wildfowl wintering in north-western Europe.
• Coastal development puts pressure on unique wildlife habitats and often leads to the loss of inter-tidal areas, which are particularly important for nature conservation.

Portswatch has the following reservations about any port development:

• The potential of existing port space has not been explored
• There has been no forecast of any likely increase in port traffic
• No indication has been given of how port developments fit into government transport policies Without these, it is impossible to assess the need for more ports.

More press releases >

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