GOVERNMENT MUST GET IT RIGHT

It is, therefore, more than a little strange that one of the world’s more mature nations, in political and economic terms, the UK, is content to act ostrich like – sticking its head in the sand – when it comes to sensible port planning!

How can it be sensible for the UK Government to adopt an approach whereby it basically decides yes or no on a new containerport project without being in full possession of all the facts regarding the alternative schemes. This, though, seems to be what is about to happen – indeed may already have happened by the time this issue of PS – hits your desk. Word on the street is that the UK Department for Transport (DfT) is set to make a decision on Associated British Ports’ (ABP) new Dibden Bay container terminal scheme imminently.

If it does so, it will be a cardinal sin. Why?

First, recent statistics indicate that traffic growth at the four southeastern container terminals – the main UK terminals – fell significantly in 2003.

Second, substantial new capacity is in the process of being added at the existing terminals.

This, practically speaking, means that there is now breathing space for the Government to consider the four major new projects – Dibden Bay, the P&O Ports backed London Gateway Port and Hutchison’s (HPH) Bathside Bay Terminal and the so called Felixstowe South project – alongside each other and not sequentially. The last two independent Inspector’s reports, for the latter two projects, will be in by the end of the year and the last time a decision can be made on new capacity is the first quarter of 2005.

Further, the case for taking this sort of approach is strengthened by the reality that much of the information that should be taken into account in a rounded planning process was not available when the independent Inspector submitted his report on Dibden Bay.

How can the UK Government justify the fragmented planning approach it is pursuing when it doesn’t employ such an approach in other key industry sectors and when it can look back upon experience in its own backyard that tells it its approach is flawed? The experience of Thamesport, introduced into the market at a time when the demand simply wasn’t there, should highlight the many negatives associated with lack of coordination in the planning process.

Thamesport effectively failed but didn’t do so in isolation, it had a negative impact across the whole of the industry.

And, it shouldn’t be forgotten that this experience has not faded in the minds of the bankers who will ultimately be asked to provide the finance for the new round of container port development. They will have their doubts when they realise the planning process – or lack of it – has the potential to unleash onto the market too much capacity too soon.

Equally, the Government approach appears to be ignoring the European law that applies under the Habitats Directive and in particular the obligation on it to alternatives in the context of their environmental impacts. Does the Government think that the newly formed grouping of environmental interests in PortsWatch is going to stand by and let this happen? I think not!

Alistair Darling, the Secretary of State for Transport and his colleagues need a wake-up call if we are to achieve what is best for the UK containerport industry, its clients and ultimately the man in the street who one way or another will have to pay for any flawed development. Ultimately, they need to recognise that their current approach is simply not good enough – not good for the industry, not good for business as a whole, not good for the environment and potentially not good enough in relation to European law.

Coordinated planning is not an option it is a must and it is proper and right that government takes the lead in this respect