Archived press release

Super-Port Protesters Warn Investors at AGM

8 April 2002

The directors of port company, Associated British Ports (ABP), will face tough questions from shareholders at their Annual General Meeting on Tuesday 16th April (12pm), over threats to wildlife at its proposed Dibden Bay development. The shareholders, including Friends of the Earth director Charles Secrett and local New Forest residents, believe the development will lead to the destruction of internationally important wildlife sites.

ABP's proposal to build a new "super-port" at Dibden Bay, within the proposed boundaries ofthe New Forest National Park [1], faces wide-ranging opposition from major environmentalorganisations, and from the government's own advisory agencies: English Nature, theEnvironment Agency and the Countryside Agency [2], as well as New Forest District Council,Hampshire County Council and the local MP.

The controversial development is currently the subject of a year-long Public Inquiry, which willstart to consider the issue of nature conservation on the day of the AGM.

Friends of the Earth believes shareholders must call the company to account over the damagethe proposal will cause to the natural environment, but it is also pointing out that the plannedport development may not bring investors the desired returns. A number of other portdevelopments are proposed in the UK, leading to probable overcapacity [3] and toughcompetition for business at Dibden Bay [4].

The financial viability of the scheme has also been called into question by independent financial analysts [5]. Evidence to the public inquiry stated that: "The Base Case analysis indicates that the return will not cover the interest costs of the project, let alone make a return commensurate with the risks attached to the project," while the best case scenario estimated that it would take 20 years to pay off the costs of the development including interest, with shareholders only receiving increased dividends before then if the project was refinanced periodically.

Charles Secrett, Director of Friends of the Earth, said:
"This is yet another case of a private company putting profits before people and wildlife. But in this case, the profits are purely speculative and the huge damage caused to this supposedly protected area may ultimately be completely unwarranted. The need for a new port at Dibden is not proven and investors would do well to put their money in safer, less controversial projects."

Julie Astin, a New Forest resident, said:
"We are concerned that the economic gains that ABP claim for the area may be short-lived, if there are any at all, but the terrible destruction of these important wildlife sites will be irreversible. ABP has not demonstrated the need for this port to be developed here - efficiency improvements should be made at the existing port in Southampton before such an expansion is considered."

Notes

[1] The areas affected by the development are:

• Solent and Southampton Water Special Protection Area (SPA) - foreshore
  
• Ramsar Site (Wetland of International Importance) - foreshore
  
• Solent Maritime candidate Special Area of Conservation (SAC) - adjacent waterway
  
• New Forest National Park _ Dibden Bay site included in proposed boundary
  
• Dibden Bay Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
  
• Hythe to Calshot Marshes Site of Special Scientific Interest _ foreshore
  

[2] The Countryside Agency, the Environment Agency and English Nature are all actively opposing Abp's plans. Their proofs of evidence are available from the Planning Inspectorate, www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/dibden.
A Friends of the Earth Briefing "A new Superport for the New Forest?" is also available.

[3] The evidence submitted by Hampshire County Council to the Public Inquiry states that: "It is simply not the case that there is no true alternative to the development of the terminal _ major planning and development investments are well advanced that will significantly alter the balance of the UK market. Dibden Terminal is simply, therefore, one possibility for port development to meet UK requirements. It is further noted that the simultaneous development of all these projects would result in a severe over-capacity position in the UK."

[4]The cost per berth of Dibden Bay is much higher at 125 million per berth than Hutchison's proposeddevelopment at Bathside Bay at 75 million.

[5] "Financial Viability of the Dibden Bay container Terminal Project" James Cooper, September 2001. Proof of Evidence to the Dibden Public Inquiry.

If you're a journalist looking for press information please contact the Friends of the Earth media team on 020 7566 1649.

Published by Friends of the Earth Trust