It is also a process, however, which has seen the UK government give a seal of approval to two new proposed port developments, namely Hutchison’s Felixstowe South and Bathside Bay (Harwich) projects as well as reiterating it is “minded to approve” DP World’s London Gateway project which, among other things, will be notable for the UK’s biggest ever dredging programme.

In fairly rapid order, the UK Government is rubber stamping an expansion programme in the containerport sector that will deliver up, given that the Hutchison projects of Felixstowe South and Bathside Bay alone proceed, an equivalent amount of container capacity to that which exists today: 7m teu/year. If the London Gateway project goes ahead as well, then the new capacity delivered there alone, within a roughly similar timeframe, will rack up another 3.5m teu/year. This is deliverable approximately three years from approval and of course ultimately has the potential to be further developed well beyond the 4m teu mark.

This effective capacity “big bang” is without other schemes that are proposed such as the alternative project now laid out for Southampton whereby 1.5m teu per annum will be added to the existing container terminal, Southampton Container Terminal Services. Overall,the eventual expansion scenario could result in a huge capacity jump.

Where are the Green Police?

Leaving aside the blood that would inevitably flow at a commercial level if such a scenario were to occur, it is interesting to ponder on that word “environment” again in such a context.

The Habitats Directive is the premier legislative instrument at a European level that aims to ensure what was referred to at the outset takes place; achieving a sensible balance between economic requirements and protecting the environment, particularly where greenfield projects are concerned.

It is most interesting, against the development background referred to above and the stringent requirements of the Habitats Directive, that the UK Government is effectively sanctioning a huge capacity increase in the container sector, particularly as a guiding light principle in the Habitats Directive is that developments should only take place if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Expansion is needed but whether it is on the scale and in the timeframe proposed appears to be highly questionable.

This, in turn,begs the question as to whether the UK Government itself is steering in an appropriate direction.Do its actions really concur with the spirit – let alone the black type – of the Habitats Directive? Another equally interesting question is whatever happened to those guardians of the environment, agencies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and English Nature (now Natural England)?

The suspicion surfaces that they might have learnt the “art of compromise”a little too well especially when the UK’s Transport Committee quotes Dr Mark Avery of the RSPB as saying that the RSPB, English Nature and the ports industry have now found a “new way of working”. Is this a way of working whereby such agencies fail to acknowledge all of the legal tests in the Directive? Have they adapted a little too well to the tactic of compensatory nature reserves offered by major port developers and is this really in keeping with their respective charters?

For sensible, environmentally sensitive, port development to take place all the key players have to field a realistic approach and one which is legally compliant with the UK’s obligations.