The UKs lost opportunities

“The red tape around the UK’s port-related planning regime is something like bramble. Despite attempts to clear it up, it keeps coming back with a vengeance,” said one delegate at the last UK national ports conference.

The reason it’s such a problem is that the UK’s ports are set up differently to their neighbours. Apart from a handful of trust or city ports, they are by and large private operations, a point which has helped projects move forward: there is little of the tension that can arise between state and business. This means, as Ian McQuade of Portland Port says, “we tend to have commercial interests driving our development – which leaves us free to largely make our own decisions and we are happy with that”.

The other side to the coin is that most of the UK’s ports are in direct competition with their European neighbours. Most of the rest of the world sees their ports as ‘state infrastructure’ and despite a skin of competitive business they get government help in one form or another: activities like dredging can, in many other places, be carried out against a rise in tariff whereas in the UK the costs have to be found up front. Further, they are seen as the gateways of the economy, so they usually get their path smoothed as far as hinterland links and planning is concerned.

It’s this last part that UK ports are most jealous of – because since time immemorial, they have had to jump through virtually the same hoops as any other industry in order to develop.

The ‘bramble’ view is reflected by a recent report on the UK’s planning framework, which the government has attempted to ‘simplify’. The main problem about the new system (which used to regularly stall projects while Ministers debated what the policy itself actually was) is, according to both Robbie Owen of Bircham Dyson Bell and Martin Hendry of Adams Hendry Consulting, that changes have missed the mark.

Mr Hendry says though the new system purports to cut down some of the enormous hurdles, there are still many, many layers to address. He points out that, “despite offers to help businesses, the old rule-book has been retained”. He agrees with the report’s conclusion that the National Planning Policy Framework is too weighted towards economic growth, but says that confusion has multiplied instead of being cut down by what he considers “unnecessary” tinkering.

He adds: “The planning system has long been the way society arrives at an acceptable ‘balance’ between a range of considerations, be they environmental or economic. All that the government is trying to do is redress the balance; you don’t have to pretend it’s more important than that.”

Mr McQuade adds: “Time will tell on the effectiveness of the NPS – but it has to be said that the current planning strictures stifle development.”

Jimmy Chestnutt of Hampshire Chamber of Commerce agrees that the years of privatisation were good for the ports as “the old heavy unionisation was a ball and chain”. However, Mr Chestnutt points to the double-edged sword that the government’s hands-off policy has bequeathed the ports, in that they have to jump through hoops to gain any planning permission almost as if they were a supermarket, not a major trade gateway.

He adds that operator ABP has been seeking permissions to dredge and deepen alongside Southampton’s quays, “but they have been tied up in legal processes”. He suspects foul play by competitors playing a part in slowing down the process and raising issues that complicate things. “One has to ask if that is in the national interest,” he says.

He points out: “It took eight years for ABP to get to the end of the process for Dibden Bay – only to get a refusal. The fact is the UK lets its infrastructure get its hands tied behind its back – and if you don’t let a trade gateway develop the jobs go and don’t come back.”

Mr Owen explains that part of the reasoning for the reorganisation was to avoid this kind of thing, giving investors a greater degree of certainty as to what would be passed and what wouldn’t make it. Policy was to be declared in advance, via National Policy Statements (NPS). However, the first Ports NPS is still in draft and he referred to concerns expressed by many that it is “clearly not a complete statement of port policy in England and Wales”.

Moreover, it “relies very heavily on the market to lead the way”, says Mr Owen, adding that it focuses on the need for container traffic facilities and does not cover other areas’ requirements comprehensively, such as renewable energy-related facilities. Likewise, what environmental attention it gives goes to ecological impact, with less paid to socio-economic impact such as jobs, tourism and regeneration.

This is related to another problem, says Jimmy Chestnutt, in that many ports have become isolated from the community, and the economic ties aren’t so visible. “In the past you saw a ship’s crew come into the town, they spent money, and they were part of the local economy. Now a ship is in for just a tide. It means that although 95% of goods come in by ship, people just don’t see what the ports do – or value them enough.”

“Further, there is a real ‘front loading’ of the application process with the developer having to submit an awful lot of information with the application, incurring very substantial consultancy fees,” adds Mr Owen.

Mr McQuade agrees: “The new process for planning for large scale infrastructure is supposed to streamline things, but the anecdotal evidence shows that all it has done is push the consultation process up front rather than leaving it until halfway through the process.” He adds: “For smaller ports like us, the local involvement can get bogged down in all sorts of local agendas, and any broader issues get totally missed.”

And still there are “many thousands of pages” of necessary reading. Mr Hendry says: “When I questioned someone about the new regime, I got told ‘Don’t worry, it’ll all be accompanied by plenty of supporting documents’…“