MASTER-CLASS OF MISTAKES

There is also an allied view that the UK Government is being less than diligent in opting to pass judgement on the various UK containerport expansion plans – ABP’s Dibden Bay project, P&O Port’s Haven Gateway Scheme and Hutchison’s Felixstowe South and Bathside Bay projects – individually and sequentially rather than in a linked-up and co-ordinated fashion.

The Government justifies such an approach under the principle of “let market forces decide” but in reality it seems that flawed decisions are likely to be the only certain outcome.

Dibden Bay is the first scheme likely to have a decision made about it – yes or no – and its position at the front of the pack is reflected in ABP’s share price which has steadily crept up recently off the back of an expectation by financial analysts that it will receive a green light.

Dibden’s position at the front of the pack, however, also serves to highlight what a nonsense the UK Government position is creating in terms of rational port planning overall.

The independent Inspector’s report for Dibden was submitted before substantial expansion plans for Southampton Container Terminals (SCT) were announced – a growth in throughput capacity from around 1.4mTEU/yr mark to potentially over 2mTEU/yr – and before Hutchison unveiled its so-called Felixstowe South project, entailing the conversion of the old P&O Ferries terminal at Felixstowe for container operations and adding 1.5mTEU/yr of new container capacity.

Given that the report was submitted prior to the launch of these schemes no account will be taken of them in the formal approval process.

Similarly, and equally strikingly, the planning approval process takes no account of other key issues relevant to the planning process because they have been left outside the data reviewed by the independent Inspector. Such issues can effectively be called “blind spots.”

The adjacent article focuses on one such huge blind spot, namely; the issues surrounding dredging requirement in terms of channel and turning circle access associated with the Dibden Bay scheme. Whatever one’s position on Dibden, for it or against it, the article makes clear the point that the UK Government is skating on very thin ice when it comes to making an informed decision on the project and similar projects generally.

The UK is no different from anywhere else in the world, when it comes to arriving at enlightened and sensible port planning decisions it must have all the facts in order to achieve this.

Further, it has to apply fairly the planning “rules” applying to the development process and this too comes into the equation in the context of Dibden Bay. The dredging issues surrounding Dibden underline the importance of a comprehensive approach to port expansion issues.