La Contea dell'Hampshire boccia il progetto del nuovo porto della Associated British Ports

L'Hampshire County Council ha respinto all'unanimità il progetto dell'Associated British Ports (ABP) per la realizzazione di un container terminal e di altre infrastrutture portuali a Dibden Bay (Southampton) (inforMARE del 29 dicembre 2000 e 12 febbraio 2001).

Nella sua analisi sull'impatto delle opere - che riportiamo di seguito - l'Hampshire County Council ritiene che i danni ambientali che deriverebbero dalla realizzazione del terminal non sarebbero compensati dai benefici di carattere economico e occupazionale (3.000 posti di lavoro secondo ABP, tra addetti alla costruzione e alla gestione del porto). Questo pronunciamento accontenta le associazioni verdi, che avevano decisamente rigettato ogni ipotesi di realizzare un porto su una porzione di 100 acri delle aree locali sottoposte a protezione ambientale.

Il pronunciamento dell' Hampshire County Council è però solo un passo, per quanto importante, sulla via dell'approvazione del progetto. Si profila quindi nei prossimi mesi una battaglia ancor più strenua tra la società portuale britannica e gli ambientalisti.

Hampshire County Council
Policy and Resources Committee &
Item 3 Planning and Transportation Committee
12 February 2001
Associated British Ports' Proposal for Dibden Bay - Overall Response
Report of the County Planning Officer and County Surveyor

Contact: T Cook ext 6768

SUMMARY
Associated British Ports (ABP) has submitted proposals for a new port at Dibden Bay. The County Council's initial representations to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) on the port proposal were endorsed by the Planning and Transportation Committee on 20 November 2000. Further work has since been carried out and this report provides a more detailed appraisal of ABP's proposals. The report covers the background to the proposals, the policy context, New Forest District Council's and other organisations' views, and, an in-depth assessment of the proposals in relation to national, regional and development plan policies. The report considers the need for new container handling facilities and the environmental impact that would arise from the Dibden Bay proposal. The Committees are recommended to endorse the County Council's detailed response to the DETR and authorise other action in relation to presenting these views at a Public Inquiry.

BACKGROUND
ABP formally submitted proposals for port development at Dibden Bay on 2 October 2000. The submission comprises the following elements:
(i) a Harbour Revision Order for the main port development;
(ii) a Transport and Works Act Order for works to the Fawley Branch Line;
(iii) two planning applications for works to the A326 and for noise barriers along the railway line; and
(iv) Stopping Up Orders for roads and footpaths, Compulsory Purchase Order for the Hythe Marina Bund and part of the foreshore, Exchange Land Certificate for Westcliff Hall site and various Food and Environment Protection Act Licences.
The Orders and the Certificate have been submitted to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the Licences have been submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the planning applications have been submitted to the District Council (although these have now been called in by the Secretary of State). Numerous documents accompany the proposal, including two Environmental Statements (one for the port development and one for the Fawley Branch Line improvement), an Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation Regulations, 54 Technical Reports and various plans.
The site of the Dibden Bay proposals is an area of former intertidal saltmarsh reclaimed between the 1930s and the 1980s by the deposit of dredged material partly from earlier development for the Port of Southampton (a location plan is attached as Appendix 1). The site forms part of a strategic gap; the foreshore is part of a Special Protection Area (SPA) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the main area of the reclaim is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The western part of the site is within the New Forest Heritage Area. The whole site has now been included within the proposed draft boundary for the New Forest National Park which was the subject of a recent consultation by the Countryside Agency.
The key elements of ABP's proposals are a deep water quay of about 1.8 kilometres in length, a deep water channel connecting to the main navigation route in Southampton Water, a docks area of 202 hectares, a landscaping area including a new tidal creek, an access road connecting to the A326, a rail connection to the Fawley Branch Line, a Park and Sail site for 500 cars, improvements to the A326 and a recharge, using the arisings from the dredge in front of the quay, of the foreshore between Hythe and Cadland which is within a candidate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). (See Appendix 2 for further details of the proposals.)
ABP has stated that there is a very strong national need to expand the Port of Southampton. It considers that, on the basis of certain assumptions, an additional 2.4 kilometres quay will be required in the United Kingdom (UK) to handle the projected increase in deep-sea container traffic by 2011. ABP has stated that the Dibden Bay terminal will have a capacity of 2.3 million TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent (Container) Units) per annum.
ABP's consultants have provided information on the impact of the new terminal proposals on the transport network. Assumptions have been made of the modal split of container traffic going through the terminal. The forecasts suggest that of those containers arriving, 30% will be forwarded by transhipment (sea), and of the remainder it is assumed that 35% will be moved by rail and 65% will be forwarded by road. Based on this assumption, the port when in full operation (estimated by 2011) will generate 4,700 road vehicle movements per day, of which 3,030 will be heavy goods vehicles. The report also indicates that 48 daily container train paths will be needed to transport the boxes by rail. The terminal is stated as employing 1,800 staff of which 70% are expected to travel by car and the remainder by alternative means. A green travel plan has been proposed but details have not been submitted. Traffic forecasts have been submitted for the year of completion of the whole site to full operation of the port (2011) and there are statements about the future forecasts for 2026, which represent 15 years after completion. Sensitivity tests have been undertaken on the road and rail traffic to allow for possible variations but this has not included a sensitivity test of the total volume the port may handle. Traffic distribution of the containers is based on UK economic activity and traffic has been assigned manually to the transport networks.
A non-technical summary of the proposal has been sent to all Members and a full set of ABP's submission documents is available for inspection in the Planning and Surveyor's Library.
Under the provisions of the appropriate regulations, comments on the Harbour Revision Order and the Transport and Works Act Order had to be submitted to the DETR by 13 November 2000 (ie within 42 days). A holding representation, which was endorsed by the Planning and Transportation Committee on 20 November 2000, has been forwarded to the DETR. This initial response indicated that the County Council wished to undertake more detailed investigations on 14 issues which were of a substantial nature and related to possible concerns in the assessment of the port proposal. The Harbour Revision Order was subsequently readvertised on 15 December 2000 with a further objection period ending on 26 January 2001. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions decided on 31 January 2001 to call for a Public Inquiry on the Dibden Bay proposals.

POLICY CONTEXT
On 29 November 2000 the Government published a National Ports Policy Paper - Modern Ports: A UK Policy. The Policy Paper does not identify the ports where expansion should be authorised. It does note that the pressure for expansion is greatest at container terminals and those catering for roll on/roll off traffic. It is recognised that forecasts do not in themselves indicate how and where port expansion should take place. The Government recognises that substantial new port development may be needed but this will be in a relatively small number of cases. The Policy Paper indicates that where there is a clear need the Government will support sustainable port projects. Each case will be determined on its merits. One of the key objectives identified in the Policy Paper is to make "the best use of existing and former operational land". The Transport White Paper (1998) had previously, with regard to ports, used the term "make the best use of existing infrastructure". Ports promoting expansion will need, according to the Policy Paper, to demonstrate that new capacity will produce significant additional benefits. Ports would be required therefore to assess whether existing facilities and increased efficiency could cater for demand. The normal environmental assessment requirements are included in the Policy Paper. The Policy Paper indicates that new port developments should utilise the assessment criteria in A New Approach To Appraisal (NATA). The Policy Paper states that port developments have to be demonstrably commercially viable.
There are also a number of relevant Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) in relation to the proposed development - the main documents are PPG13 - Transport, PPG9 - Nature Conservation, PPG7 - The Countryside - Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development, and PPG20 - Coastal Planning. The are also some relevant European policy statements including the European Spatial Development Perspective. In addition, there are certain regulations arising from the Habitat Directives.
In December 2000 the Government published draft revised Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9). Policy T7 states that the sustainable development of seaports and port facilities (including road and rail access to them) should be supported for international deep sea, short sea and coastal shipping. In support of the policy the draft revised RPG9 states that development plans should identify and safeguard from other development appropriate sites of port use that will be required to meet changing market needs. In addition it states that local authorities, port authorities, the shipping industry and others should work in partnership to produce development strategies for port facilities and access to them, which are sustainable and make the best use of existing facilities. In developing a strategy it states that careful consideration should be given to the benefit of continued port operations within the wider spatial strategy in determining the future role of ports. The draft revised RPG9 notes that a study of ports and shipping markets is required covering the South East, London and East of England. It indicates that this study should inform the next revision of the RPG.
The principal development plan policy for Dibden Bay is Policy EC6 in the Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review). The policy states: "Port development requiring access to deep water may be permitted at Dibden Bay provided that it can be demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs its impact on:
(i) areas of importance to nature conservation;
(ii) the conservation, landscape or ecology of the New Forest; or
(iii) local communities; and
(a) sufficient provision is made to offset the impact, including replacement or substitution of habitats or features lost and conservation of ecological networks; and
(b) that the required access can be achieved without serious disturbance to the countryside, coastal areas or communities affected and that maximum use is made of rail and sea routes; and that appropriate contributions are secured to fund infrastructure and services required as a result of the development."
There were references to Dibden Bay in previous Structure Plans. It should be noted that the South Hampshire Structure Plan (1977) proposed the safeguarding of an area of land at Dibden Bay for possible long-term use for the development of marine activity subject to the satisfaction of environmental, access and other criteria. The South Hampshire Structure Plan: First Alteration (1987) included a presumption that before any development could proceed at Dibden Bay, it would have to be established that the strategic road network could cope with the traffic, that adequate access could be provided and that the impact on the landscape, ecology and nature conservation value of Southampton Water would be acceptable. The Hampshire County Structure Plan (1994) contained no specific policy on Dibden Bay.
There are other relevant Structure Plan policies in relation to the proposed port development covering the New Forest, strategic gaps, transport, the coast, landscape, nature conservation, archaeology, and minerals and waste. The full text of the above policies is included as Appendix 3.
The Hampshire, Southampton and Portsmouth Minerals and Waste Local Plan 1998 Policy 22 states that 'new wharf and rail-head depot facilities for marine dredged or sea-borne aggregates will be permitted provided that the location is suitable for the development proposed and the development would not be likely to cause unacceptable environmental, traffic or other impact'. In paragraph 5.59 the Local Plan indicates that in the event of any proposal at Dibden Bay which does not include provision of an aggregates wharf, eight hectares of land should be safeguarded for this purpose. In the event of no other port development at Dibden Bay, a high capacity wharf may be permitted provided it meets certain criteria as identified in paragraph 5.59 of the Plan. (The text of Policy 22 and paragraph 5.59 is also reproduced in Appendix 3).
There are also relevant policies included in the New Forest District Local Plan.

DISTRICT COUNCIL'S, CITY COUNCIL'S AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS' VIEWS
The comments included in this section have been selected from correspondence sent direct to the County Council and paraphrased for convenience in this report. The full text of the letters by these bodies is available in the Members' Room. The County Council is only a consultee on this development and a full analysis of public comment both in support and objection to the proposals sent to the DETR is not yet available for perusal.
New Forest District Council resolved on 9 November 2000 to object to the proposed development at Dibden Bay. The District Council identified initial areas of concern covering the need case and the business case for the development, impact on the strategic gap, landscape impacts, impact on nature conservation designations, transport impacts, economic impacts, pollution impacts generally and on local communities, land drainage impacts, recreation/tourism and leisure impacts, related development pressures and safeguarding zones and public safety. The District Council officers are continuing to assess the development proposals in detail.
Southampton City Council will consider the proposal in detail in March 2001. The City Council has previously indicated that it wished to address the issues of need, nature conservation, marine ecology, the New Forest, impact on local communities, mitigation, and transport and access.
English Nature objects to the development. It considers that the proposed scheme will have an adverse effect on the integrity of three international wildlife sites caused by changes to the geomorphological regime of the estuary, direct removal of habitat from within the SPA and Ramsar site, displacement of bird populations and, during the construction phase, disturbance to bird populations. English Nature also feels that the Appropriate Assessment does not provide reasoned justification for the conclusions reached. It is further considered that the Assessment does not provide adequate consideration of the precautionary principle nor adequate consideration of the untried nature of the ameliorative measures. English Nature considers the approach used in the Appropriate Assessment is contrary to the Conservation Regulations, European Commission policy guidance and PPG 9.
The Environment Agency has objections and concerns about the proposed development. It considers the Environmental Statement deficient in certain areas and that there has been a misdirection in relation to the Habitats Directive. The proposals are considered to have a number of adverse effects in relation to Agency matters which render the proposals unacceptable in their present form.
The Countryside Agency objects to the proposal and recommends that it is rejected. It considers that a convincing case has yet to be made which would fully address the requirements and tests stated in PPGs and elsewhere.
The Hampshire Economic Partnership (HEP) resolved to acknowledge the positive effect that the Dibden Bay scheme would have on the skills and employment opportunities available in the Hampshire area and the overall benefit the development would afford to the wider local economy. HEP stated that in principle it is supportive of the economic justification for the development but is not in a position to comment on or assess the environmental or infrastructure implications.

OVERALL APPRAISAL BY THE COUNTY PLANNING OFFICER AND COUNTY SURVEYOR INTRODUCTION
Structure Plan Review Policy EC6 acknowledges that port development may be permitted at Dibden Bay. The policy stipulates that it would have to be demonstrated that the need for the port development outweighs its impact on nature conservation, the New Forest and local communities, and sufficient mitigation was provided, a satisfactory access achieved and other criteria met. The Port proposal also has to be considered in the context of other Structure Plan policies as well as any relevant national and regional policies. The following overall appraisal has used the framework of Policy EC6 to 'steer' the analysis.
The question of need is complicated. It requires a vision of possible demand for container facilities, an estimation of supply provision that might come forward at existing ports and any new port schemes, and an analysis of any shortfalls. A view is also required of how important or urgent it is to overcome any shortfall.
The overall appraisal below is undertaken using the following sequence. Firstly, the market demand for increased port facilities is examined before considering the Dibden Bay proposal as a possible solution. The environmental impact of the proposals is then assessed, followed by an analysis of the transportation and other impacts. Consideration is then given to the supply side situation. This is followed by an overall assessment of need. This examines the demand/supply situation and evaluates the significance of any shortfall. The proposals are also examined against the rest of the policy framework. Finally, the conclusions of the appraisal are provided with recommendations of the way forward. Any background papers used in the appraisal are available in the Members' Room.
Each issue in the following appraisal begins with a brief outline of ABP's conclusions on the subject.

DEMAND
The econometric forecasts and trend analyses conducted for the Dibden Bay proposal by MDS Transmodal for ABP suggest that growth in container traffic in the UK will continue at between 4.9% and 5.7% per annum.
The County Council has commissioned its own consultants, Ocean Shipping Consultants, to examine market demand up to 2015. Current demand measured by throughput at the major UK ports amounted to 5.11 million TEUs in 1999. Three categories of shipment were examined to prepare estimates for future growth:
(i) Direct Deep-sea demand - the handling of containers for vessels linking directly with non-European markets;
(ii) Transhipment/relay demand - the handling of containers between deep-sea (non-European) markets and short sea feeder vessels; and
(iii) Intra-European demand - the handling of containers within the European market.
Two cases were prepared:
(i) The Base Case - which combines the import/export demand generated under the most likely course of national economic development with a higher range of anticipated transhipment demand.
(ii) The Low Case - which brings together the import/export demand generated under slower growth in the UK with a highly competitive European transhipment market and consequently lower demand growth in the UK transhipment sector.
Under the Base Case it is forecast that demand will develop by some 81% between 1999 and 2010 to reach a total of 9.25 million TEUs per annum, with the Low Case generating an expansion of around 66% to 8.48 million TEUs. This divergence continues over the balance of the study period, with demand ultimately reaching 11.7 million TEUs (Base Case) or 10.3 million TEUs (Low Case) in 2015. In terms of average year-on-year demand growth over the entire forecast period the Base Case generates a rate of 5.3%, with the Low Case recording demand growth of 4.5% per annum.
There are some differences in methodology between ABP's and the County Council's consultants. Although in general a similar size of growth is forecast, it is felt that ABP's case on transhipment is questionable and this issue needs further consideration (see paragraphs 5.81 to 5.83 below). In addition it is felt that the potential change in the relationship between trade volumes and containerisation, as economies mature and the proportional growth in container trade eases, is not addressed by ABP. The lack of sensitivities, eg lower UK GDP growth, slower transhipment development, is a major drawback in ABP's consultants report.
It is reasonable to conclude that there will continue to be significant growth in demand, and additional container handling capacity will be required in the UK. ABP has put forward Dibden Bay as a possible solution.
The next sections consider the environmental impact and transport implications of the Dibden Bay proposal. A full detailed appraisal has not yet been completed on all the following issues. Further work will continue but sufficient evaluation has been undertaken to formulate an initial overall view.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Nature Conservation
ABP has concluded that the Dibden Bay proposals will have direct effects, both adverse and beneficial, on areas within the intertidal and subtidal system of the Solent. It considers that the balance of effects of the port facility and the habitat restoration proposals will not have a significant adverse effect on the estuarine systems of Southampton Water and the Solent. The Environmental Statement indicates that the two main contributing factors to this conclusion are the intertidal recharge of the Hythe to Cadland foreshore with cleaner sediment and the creation and management of other coastal sites, notably the new creek and a nature conservation area at Church Farm. With the exception of wigeon, the recharge is felt to provide sufficient alternative functional habitat for waterfowl that regularly feed on the Dibden foreshore and the Dibden reclaim land. The impact of the possibility of a small decline in the wigeon population is not considered significant by ABP. The proposed creek is considered to provide a natural transition from creek habitat to saltmarsh into the wet and dry grasslands of the Church Farm nature conservation area, of value for waterfowl and coastal plants and insect communities. ABP also considers that the proposals will not cause significant damage to the functional ecological system of the New Forest.
ABP's proposals will have a considerable adverse effect on nature conservation. There will be the direct loss of 42 hectares of intertidal mud along the Dibden foreshore which is designated as an SPA. There will also be the further loss of 34 hectares of intertidal foreshore below mean low water. There will be the loss of the wet grassland of the reclaimed land behind the foreshore which is important for birds using the foreshore. Preliminary discussions with consultants and other information such as advice available to English Nature indicates that there may be changes in the hydrology of Southampton Water which would erode vital intertidal areas. ABP's offsetting measures to redress the adverse effects rely heavily on the feasibility and potential benefits of the creek, replacement wet grassland, and the recharge of the Hythe to Cadland foreshore which affects a cSAC. These are major works that need careful consideration particularly with respect to the effects on the sites of European importance. There are also concerns about the appropriateness of the ecological assessment methodologies used by ABP.
The proposed development has been considered in relation to the conservation objectives for the Solent and Southampton Water SPA/Ramsar site and the Solent maritime cSAC. It is concluded that an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA is inevitable. Loss of intertidal habitats within the SPA and further areas of intertidal, shallow sub-tidal and coastal wet grassland outside the SPA is not adequately mitigated. This is likely to cause changes in the populations of migrant waterfowl within the SPA. In addition there are likely to be short-term impacts to migrant waterfowl from disturbance, sedimentation deposition on intertidal habitats and potential effects on fish populations used by fish eating birds. Further detailed appraisal is required including the assessment of potential impacts on breeding terns and gulls. The assessment on the Ramsar site is similar but as additional significant effects on habitats and rare flora is inevitable, further appraisal by the County Council is required. The impacts in respect of the cSAC are such that it is likely that there will be an adverse effect on the integrity of a range of habitats of European importance found within the site including those within the Hamble estuary.
The Dibden Bay Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) will be destroyed. This will cause a significant adverse effect on the populations of waterfowl which use the SPA, an adverse impact on breeding birds, a significant loss of a range of important coastal habitats, and a significant loss of a rich assemblage of rare and scarce plants and species.
There are major concerns with the proposed creek. There are problems in considering this as replacement foreshore as it does not represent 'like for like'. It is uncertain whether the habitats will become functional within the timescales put forward by ABP. Advice to English Nature is that it could take up to 20 years for colonisation to be achieved. This could lead to a decline in waterfowl populations.
The replacement habitats at Church Farm will only provide 16 hectares of wet grassland, half of which will be winter flooded. This measure represents inadequate mitigation for the loss of the reclaimed land.
The proposed recharge of the Hythe to Cadland foreshore has major uncertainties. The practical difficulties of undertaking this operation have not been addressed and there has been no comparable operation ever undertaken in the UK. The use of the dredged material is questionable as sediments at Dibden are not naturally found at Hythe/Cadland. It is again uncertain whether the recharge will become functional within the timescales suggested by ABP. It is understood that advice to English Nature suggests that the benefits of creating additional mudflats at the Hythe/Cadland recharge would be removed within 19 years due to sea level rise alone. There is the potential arising from the recharge for impacts on adjacent habitats of European importance.
There is also the likelihood of a wider cumulative effect of the proposals arising from the decrease in sediment supply. This could affect for example the Bury and Eling Marshes. In addition, there would be nature conservation effects arising from a subsequent need to deepen the main channel in Southampton Water (see paragraph 5.36 below).

Appropriate Assessment
An Appropriate Assessment under the Conservation Regulations has been undertaken by ABP as a competent authority proposing to undertake a relevant project. This Appropriate Assessment has concluded that when viewed as a single plan or project, and taking into account the manner in which the development is proposed to be carried out, the project would not adversely affect the integrity of the main European sites in the locality.
English Nature has produced guidelines on the structure and procedures involved in undertaking an Appropriate Assessment. ABP's approach does not follow English Nature's guidance. The Appropriate Assessment is deficient as it fails to give a reasoned view as to how ABP arrived at its decision concerning likely significant effect and effect on integrity.
The sequence of analysis involved in Appropriate Assessment is firstly identifying whether a project is likely to have a significant effect on a nature conservation site of European importance. Then ascertaining whether the proposal will adversely affect the integrity of the site, taking into account any conditions or mitigation (measures aimed at minimising or cancelling the negative impacts on the site itself). If there is an adverse effect, the next stage is to be satisfied that there are no alternative solutions for the development. If there is no alternative solution then, depending on the circumstances, the project has to demonstrate that there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest. Ultimately with a negative assessment, compensatory measures have to be secured to ensure that the overall coherence of the network of SPAs and SACs is protected.
ABP has reached its view of no adverse effect on the integrity of the sites of European importance by including compensatory measures as part of the project and therefore treating them as mitigation. However, it is felt that the creek should be considered as compensation rather than mitigation. There is a strong argument to the effect that a replacement habitat on the scale of the Hythe to Cadland Recharge should be more appropriately considered as compensation not mitigation.
Counsel to the County Council feels that the approach taken in the Appropriate Assessment is flawed. As it is contended that there is harm to the integrity of the sites of European importance, it is considered that ABP needs to submit evidence that it is satisfied that there are no alternative solutions, in the form of suitable sites or different practical approaches to the development, which would have a lesser overall environmental impact. Further consideration of these issues is covered in the Supply Side Situation section below. ABP would also need to demonstrate that the development should be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest. It is considered that neither of these aspects has been adequately dealt with by ABP.

New Forest
ABP considers that the proposals have both a detrimental direct effect and a beneficial direct effect on the New Forest Heritage Area, east of the A326. It considers that landscape and nature conservation proposals enhance the landscape character and quality of the area. However, the Environmental Statement notes that the proposals generate some direct impact within the New Forest Heritage Area, in the form of the access proposals, and indirect impact arising from the views. In view of the New Forest's status equivalent to a National Park, ABP considers the effect on the area to be of moderate significance.
Since the publication of the Environmental Statement, the Countryside Agency has published a consultation document on the draft boundary for the New Forest National Park. The proposed boundary includes the whole of the New Forest Heritage Area and some further land including Dibden Bay. The Countryside Agency has identified considerations relating to landscape and ecology covering Dibden Bay and a slightly wider area, which it considers fulfil the National Park criteria. Dibden Bay is an important link from the Forest to the water's edge and, in view of the nature conservation interest and its coastal grazing landscape characteristics, a case can be made for its inclusion within the proposed National Park. Arising from the development there would also be the loss of pasture potentially suitable for back up grazing of about 200 hectares. On 22 January 2001 the Planning and Transportation Committee endorsed the Countryside Agency's proposals for the boundary to include Dibden Bay.
As a major development within and adjacent to an area with equivalent status to a National Park, an assessment in line with PPG7 should have been carried out by ABP. Government planning policy towards National Parks and the New Forest is that major development should not take place in these areas save in exceptional circumstances. Consideration of such applications should normally include an assessment of the need for the development in terms of national considerations, and the cost of and scope for developing elsewhere outside the area or meeting the need for it in some other way. These issues are not adequately answered by ABP's submission.

Landscape
ABP considers that the landscape measures as part of the Dibden Bay proposals will create a significant physical and visual buffer to the New Forest, Marchwood, Dibden, Hythe and Hythe Marina Village. It is felt that the development will assimilate into the surrounding landscape and have limited visual impact on the surrounding settlements. The Environmental Statement indicates that the visual intrusion of the proposed terminal is variable - from most areas it is concluded that the impact is insignificant, with limited locations of adverse substantial impact. The landscape proposals for the terminal are considered in the Environmental Statement to be commensurate in scale and nature within the development.
There are specific landscape concerns related to this development. The scheme will bring industrial development much closer to the New Forest and the tops of quayside cranes will be visible over wide areas within the New Forest Heritage Area and proposed National Park. It is unlikely that a development of this scale can ever be satisfactorily assimilated into the landscape. Its scale, appearance and siting is not appropriate to the locality.
The visual impact of the proposals on residential amenity is not rigorously considered by ABP. The assessment presents no analysis of the impacts on individual properties or groups of viewers at specific locations. There is no rationale presented for the selection of photomontage viewpoints and a very limited number of photomontages prepared for the scale of development proposed.
The development involves the loss of a large surviving visual and functional link from the edge of the Forest to the waterside. There will no longer be clear uninterrupted views from the edge of the Forest to Southampton Water in this location and similarly from the historic core of Southampton to the Forest.
The development would result in a substantial impact on the environmental quality of the coast and on landscape and seascape character. Specific concerns include the loss of a large extensive area of open, undeveloped coastline of Southampton Water and the Test estuary. Also there would be significant night-time impacts on landscape character arising from the proposed lighting. There are concerns about sky glow and the loss of dark skies as well as direct visual intrusion from light sources and the day time appearance of lighting apparatus. Of specific concern are impacts on the character of Southampton, particularly on the waterfront and historic core with the loss of the cross water dark sky views towards the Forest, changes to the character of the coast, impacts on the landscape character of the Heritage Area and impacts on the Forest core, particularly areas valued for their relative remoteness.
The Environmental Statement lacks a strategic perspective of the landscape and fails to consider in sufficient depth the sub-regional landscape context and to encompass the whole Forest and the broader coastal landscape setting. It is felt that the County Council could raise questions on the consistency and the integrity of the landscape methodologies adopted. There is a failure to fully address the matter of historic landscape character and insufficient recognition of settlement character and setting. Mitigation measures appear to be a bolt on to the proposals and do not particularly reflect or build on landscape character, eg by drawing on the landscape principles presented in the New Forest District landscape character assessment.

Marine Issues
ABP recognises that the proposed development of the Dibden Terminal will potentially result in a number of impacts on features of interest within the marine environment. It is felt that the main effects will occur during construction when the Dibden foreshore will be removed and the access from the main channel is dredged. Overall, ABP considers that there are no potentially significant impacts on the estuary system over the short or long-term that cannot be managed to an acceptable level. The Environmental Statement indicates that the impact of further channel deepening has been assessed and that the conclusions for the proposal were unaltered. Such a project does not form part of any proposals by ABP
Advice available to English Nature would appear to indicate that the proposed Dibden Terminal will further accelerate the long-term morphological deterioration of the estuary system. A major factor contributing to the deterioration of the estuary system is maintenance dredging, as the material is largely lost to the system. The maintenance dredging due to ABP's proposals would be likely to lead to a narrowing of the inter-tidal area. Sea level rise will accelerate the loss. In addition, ABP's assessment may have underestimated the morphological effects on the estuary including the Rivers Itchen and Hamble.
The Environmental Statement indicates that the deep water approach channel has no significant operational capacity constraints. However, the access for the deeper draft container vessels is limited to specific tidal windows and access is not available to such vessels around the clock. While ABP does provide some analysis, there is little discussion on the impact of larger vessels in the future, in terms of access and tidal windows, channel dredging requirements, manoeuvring and handling at the berths. Marine access is a fundamental issue and there is a need for more specialist advice to be available to the County Council on this issue.
Given that the marine access to Felixstowe is provided to a minimum depth of 14.5 metres below Chart Datum and the interest by other ports and sites to provide this depth both in the UK and in Northern Europe, there is a need to consider whether the shipping industry might require this facility at Southampton, where the current access minimum is 12.5 metres. ABP has not adequately addressed this issue nor provided with the submission the necessary information to judge its potential impact. This would provide a true comparison with other alternatives.

Strategic Impact on Local Communities
ABP has studied various aspects of local impact. It considers that the overall visual impact on Hythe Marina Village is moderate and for much of the village of Marchwood there will be no visual impact. The same impacts are identified for night-time lighting. After mitigation measures ABP considers that the majority of construction noise impacts from the terminal will be of minor significance, but for the road construction there will be moderate or major significance on some receptors close to the A326. During operation noise impacts will be of minor significance. General piling activity is predicted to have a minor adverse impact except for a moderate impact on Hythe during the construction of the southern end of the quay wall. At Totton ABP feels that it is unlikely that average closure times of the level crossing will change appreciably and expect no material impact on overall traffic queueing during times of closure. ABP has also considered air and ground quality, service provision and other local impacts.
Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) Policy EC6 requires consideration of the impact on local communities. It is appropriate therefore that the County Council in formulating a view of the proposals considers the strategic impact on communities.
The proposed development will urbanise the strategic gap between Marchwood and Hythe. The vital characteristic of a strategic gap is that it should be retained free of development, such that there is not a detraction from the feeling of leaving one settlement before entering another. The cranes, container stacks and buildings represent development of an urban nature that will be on a very large scale. Residential amenity in Hythe and Marchwood will be directly affected by the proposals. Noise during construction from piling and operational noise from use of the terminal will still be considerable. There will be a visual impact day and night arising from the proposals. Air quality will also be an issue. Although there will be the possibility of increased local employment, the resulting physical activity and transport movement generated by the new terminal will inevitably involve a major change to the ambience of these Waterside communities. The severity of change will reduce the further the distance away from the terminal. However, it is considered that the scale of the development represents a major redirection for these settlements as the proposal cannot be absorbed as a minor urban addition. Also, there are other adverse effects arising from the transport proposals. Increased road traffic and a higher number of rail movements will have a detrimental impact on residential amenity for those properties in close proximity to the main infrastructure links. In community rather than transport terms, there will also be an adverse impact on amenity arising from increased train movements at Totton. It is felt that the severance issue at Totton level crossing has been evaluated solely in terms of closure times and queueing. It would be appropriate to also consider resident and user perceptions of the problem. There is also insufficient information provided regarding quantities of materials or location of source involved in the construction of the proposals to enable community or environmental impacts from this aspect to be identified.

TRANSPORT
ABP's assessment of the impact of the terminal traffic generation on the strategic and local highway network concludes that the port development traffic will have no material adverse impact upon the strategic network. It is felt that conditions on the A326 will be significantly improved with the proposed changes. An assessment by ABP of the impact of the additional rail movements on the local rail network demonstrates that the Fawley branch line has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional train movements from the terminal. Some improvements at the Fawley Goods Loop have been identified to allow for longer freight trains. ABP considers the impact on level crossings to be limited and no improvements have been identified apart from safety measures at some crossings.
Transport assessment of the proposals by ABP is guided by Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) Policies T4, T5 and T6 as well as Policy EC6 (see Appendix 3). It is against the background of these policies that the proposals have been considered and discussions are continuing with ABP.
ABP has made proposals to deal with the impact of the terminal. In summary these are:
(i) improvement of the single carriageway sections of the A326 north of the new access road - a 10 metre carriageway with hatched white line central reservation, reducing the available capacity but providing segregation between opposing traffic flows;
(ii) conversion of the current roundabout junctions on the A326 to signalised intersections north of their access;
(iii) the development of a Park and Sail facility between the terminal and Southampton; and
(iv) improvements to the Fawley branch line.
Prior to arriving at its proposals for accessing Dibden Bay, ABP had examined three other strategic alternative access options. These were:
Option A - High Level Bridge (between Dock Gate 4 and Dibden Bay [East]);
Option B1 and B2 - Tunnel (routed as Option A); and
Option C - Low Level Bridge (between Dock Gate 4 and Dibden Bay [West]).
These options were derived from an original scope of nine potential approaches. Five options were rejected as impractical or unrealistic. ABP concluded that whilst the three options above provide direct linkage between the existing Port of Southampton and the proposed terminal and have advantages, the option of utilising the A326 corridor would result in the least environmental impact, would have clear economic benefits and have significant benefits to existing users of the transport network. In all these options, access would still be required to the A326.
ABP concluded that, on the basis of the likely costs, and environmental and economic considerations, the appropriate strategic access option was to improve the A326. It is clear that the development would anyway require access onto the A326 and that in overall terms improving the A326 could provide the most acceptable option subject to certain assumptions. The standard of improvement to the A326 is still the subject of discussion with ABP's consultants.
Although dialogue with ABP's transport consultants has been ongoing since the terminal was first proposed there have been two changes in lead consultants and it was only shortly before the Orders were submitted that the transport impact assessment was made available to the County Council. There are still several areas where insufficient information has been provided and dialogue with ABP is continuing to secure relevant information.
By its own assessment ABP acknowledges that the A326 will be heavily loaded in the year 2011. Table 6.3 of Appendix 4 indicates the ratio of flow to capacity over this route without the terminal and without road improvements. Table 6.4 reflects the situation with the terminal and with the road improvements. The maximum impact of the terminal is predicted to add up to 15.7% more traffic on the local network concentrated mainly on the A326 between the site access and the M27. In terms of DETR design capacity guidelines for new roads the A326 will be well in excess of the normal design criteria. However, the design capacity is not now used to assess the suitability of existing roads to cater for future traffic levels. It is now normal practice to use what is termed 'Congestion Reference Flows' to assess the suitability of roads to cater for predicted traffic levels. However, even using these criteria, sections of the route are still predicted to be over capacity - see Appendix 4 table 6.1.
Traffic predictions relating to the impact of the terminal are subject to a number of assumptions for which the degree of certainty is variable. It is therefore appropriate to consider a range of impact based sensitivity tests. If sensitivity tests are applied to the future operation of the port and the likely number of heavy goods vehicles generated, to reflect the uncertainty of actual future traffic levels generated by the terminal, the transport situation on the A326 is likely to deteriorate further. This will present a worst case scenario but is necessary to test the adequacy of any proposal.
ABP has stated (Technical Statement P3) that its proposals have been developed in accordance with the County Council's Local Transport Plan Policies, in particular with the Totton and Waterside Transport Strategy (TAWTS) objectives. It should be noted that TAWTS has been developed excluding the Dibden Terminal and that any consideration of the terminal impact will need to consider carefully the need for off-site road improvements which may not necessarily accord with TAWTS. In particular ABP's identification of the improvement of the A326 that is necessary in relation to the Dibden Bay development should not be limited by TAWTS policies.
Hampshire County Council has for many years avoided the use of 10 metres wide single carriageways as they have often been noted for their poor road safety record. ABP has clearly recognised this in its proposal and has sought to overcome concerns about the adequacy of such designs by the partial segregation of opposing flows using white paint to hatch out the centre two metres of the road. It is understood that ABP has now commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) to review its proposals for the A326. The TRL is well respected as a research organisation and the results of its review are awaited with interest. Should it confirm the County Council's concerns about the appropriateness of the road proposals then ABP will be faced with a need to review its transport proposals.
It is normal practice when considering the impact of new developments to undertake a 15 years forecast of the traffic impact from the completion of the development. Although ABP indicates that this has been considered in its studies no forecasts are included in the assessment. Whilst it is not usually necessary to provide new highway capacity for this level of forecast, it is material in coming to a view on the suitability of proposals. It is clear that this analysis would indicate even higher levels of traffic overloading on the network.
The junction improvements on the A326 have not been assessed in detail as traffic calculations have not been submitted. In principle the conversion of the junctions to traffic signals is viewed positively as this would provide a safer form of junction for the routes predicted use which would include a significant proportion of heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) traffic, including petrol tankers. As with any changes to the road layout there will be consequential environmental issues which will need to be assessed in detail. These issues may limit the scope for acceptable changes.
Traffic impact on the Motorway and Trunk Road network is being assessed by the Highways Agency. It is understood that it has yet to confirm its view but issues relating to junctions 2 and 3 of the M27 have given cause for concern as there are considered to be safety and capacity issues. Also of cause for concern is the impact on the A36 although the level of impact on these roads is low (1% increase).
Traffic impact on the remaining local road network is low and considered insufficient to warrant restraint or improvement measures. However, a lorry routeing agreement will need to be discussed with ABP and this will need to ensure adequate control of HGVs using the terminal to avoid this traffic straying onto the forest roads or entering local communities.
The predicted rail usage is to be commended in principle but there can be no guarantees it will materialise in practice. There is also concern about the capability of the network to accommodate the predicted traffic. The predicted use of rail is based on a number of assumptions. It should be noted that this area of operation is considered uncertain and hence ABP's consultants have undertaken sensitivity tests to identify a range of impacts. Independent consultants appointed by this Council are currently checking the rail impact, improvements and proposed operation. Results are not yet available. Of particular concern is the noise impact of the proposal as many trains will run at night. Also the potential conflict with the South Hampshire Rapid Transit (SHRT) on the Fawley branch is being investigated.
The impact on Totton level crossing is dismissed by ABP as its proposals are said to have only marginal impact. It is considered that insufficient analysis has been undertaken to draw this conclusion about the appropriate action to take over the Totton level crossing. ABP has been asked to provide further analysis.
The Park and Sail proposal whilst welcomed in principle does not provide a convenient alternative to the car as this route to Southampton would require people to travel by several modes of transport and interchange between them a number of times. The predicted transfer of commuters is seen as optimistic (150 in the peak hour) and the viability and operation of the facility are not demonstrated in the submission. The suggested use of the car park for integration into SHRT would possibly be beneficial but it is not clear what impact this would have on the viability of the proposed ferry. The impact on the existing ferry service is not considered and it is understood that ABP has been in discussion with White Horse Ferries (the Hythe ferry operator) about the future management and scope for integrated services. The worst-case scenario would be that a new ferry would compete with the existing one and neither would be viable or able to survive commercially. Clearly the importance of a ferry crossing means that it requires careful consideration so as not to undermine what has been a fragile business existence. ABP has not provided sufficient justification for this proposal.
The local access to the terminal has not been addressed in any detail. Although it is unlikely that there will be any significant adverse impact on the local road network (excluding the A326) arising from the movement of containers, there may be minor issues relating to commuting and travel by staff. This will be pursued with ABP along with a green travel plan.
The environmental impact of the road and rail proposals has been examined as far as possible. Much of the existing A326, the access road and rail link lie adjacent to or within the boundary of the New Forest Heritage Area or the proposed National Park. There would be an adverse impact on the character of the Heritage Area due to the greater intrusion of urban elements and the general urbanising influence of increased road and rail traffic. Most of the woodland and some of the meadows within the hinterland between the proposed terminal and the New Forest SSSI are already designated as SINCs within the New Forest District Local Plan. As new survey data becomes available more of the meadows, and areas of verge along the A326, are being recognised as meeting the SINC criteria and have been proposed for inclusion within the revised New Forest SINC Schedule. All the important stretches of verge along the A326, including those that meet the SINC criteria, are to be designated as 'Important Road Verges' under the County Council's Road Verge Project and will receive special management. A complete assessment of the potential impacts has been impossible as the data within the Environmental Statement is inadequate. However, 11 sites which are either designated or proposed as SINCs will be damaged by the proposed road and rail improvements and access arrangements. In addition there will be loss or damage to most of the areas identified as being Important Road Verges during the constructional stage and the loss of about 7 hectares of potential back-up grazing land which falls within the New Forest Heritage Area and the proposed National Park boundary. The level of detail for most of these proposals is currently inadequate, in terms of both the physical work associated with habitat creation and the subsequent habitat management, to assess their effectiveness as mitigation measures. There needs to be consideration whether there are any other heritage impacts arising from the transport proposals.

OTHER ISSUES

Minerals and Waste
ABP states that an area for aggregates storage will be provided in the northern part of the terminal. The aggregates store is expected to be up to about 13 metres high and will be served by an overhead conveyor. The aggregates will be loaded onto lorries or rail wagons. Aggregate trains are likely to be about 350 metres long.
The inclusion within the port development proposals of provision for a deep-water aggregates wharf is in line with the safeguarding requirement in paragraph
of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan. However, the need for an aggregates wharf to be developed now at Dibden has not been adequately justified. The analysis put forward is based on sea-won aggregates rather than sea-borne aggregates. There does not appear to be any assurances within the Orders put forward that a wharf will be provided. Any such justification could be argued as premature pending the DETR's review of Minerals Planning Guidance 6 (MPG6)- Guidelines for Aggregates Provision in England, which is currently in progress. The environmental impact of the proposed aggregates wharf cannot be separated from that of the development as a whole. Consequently the proposed aggregates wharf fails to meet the criteria in paragraph 5.59 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan.
The port development proposals do not make clear the overall on-site materials balance and the consequent requirement for imported aggregate materials * both bulk construction materials (fill) and higher quality aggregates (e.g. for concrete and asphalt) - and how and where these materials would be obtained. The implications of this requirement for aggregate resources and the affect on 'normal' supply of aggregates within and to Hampshire are not identified. Without this information a full assessment of impacts in relation to minerals supply issues cannot be made. The port development proposals do not make clear the amounts and types of material arising from the development that will require disposal or other waste management treatment, nor where disposal/treatment would take place and how the material would be transported. With the exception of waste water, there is no mention in the proposals of the provisions that would be made for waste management, either during construction or operation of the port. Without this information a full assessment of impacts in relation to waste management issues cannot be made. Provisions should be made to ensure that waste is managed in a sustainable manner, in particular that waste arisings are minimised and reuse and recycling is maximised.

Archaeology
ABP's archaeological assessment shows that different aspects of the Dibden Terminal may result in minor or moderate adverse effects on the known archaeological heritage, but impact reduction measures will produce a sustainable and in some cases beneficial outcome.
Although broadly concurring with the archaeological assessment to date, there are some issues which still require further investigation and ABP has offered to undertake additional evaluative work. Separately, there are concerns that possible erosion in Southampton Water, directly or indirectly arising from the development, could have implications for some nationally important archaeological sites.

Rights of Way
Construction of the proposals requires the temporary stopping up of some footpaths and the permanent closure of others. ABP proposes amendments to the rights of way network.
There are therefore concerns about the impact of the Orders on rights of way and public access to the area as a whole. These detailed concerns need to be discussed with ABP.

OVERVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORT IMPACT
In conclusion, there is a considerable environmental and transport impact arising from the proposals. There is a significant adverse effect on nature conservation such that the integrity of the sites of European importance are affected and further evaluation is required. ABP has not adequately assessed the implications of the proposals as a site within and adjacent to the New Forest which has equivalent status to a National Park. There is a substantial adverse impact on landscape grounds. There are considerable concerns related to marine issues, especially the operational suitability to service larger container ships in the future. There will be major strategic impact on the Waterside communities. There are major transport implications which have not been shown to be adequately dealt with.
Having evaluated the environmental impact of the proposals it is now necessary to consider the supply side of the need for the development.

SUPPLY SIDE SITUATION
There are a number of aspects to the supply side situation. Ocean Shipping Consultants has estimated that the UK major ports handling capacity in 1999 was 5.43 million TEUs. (This figure reflects current capacity before the introduction of planned improvements or new developments currently under construction.) The availability of port capacity to handle the predicted demand identified above (paragraphs 5.5 to 5.7) is likely to be determined by two main factors:
(i) the level of potential capacity at existing container terminals (productivity improvements); and
(ii) the introduction of new capacity at existing ports or new developments.
These factors are considered below firstly at Southampton Water (potential within the existing port and the Dibden Bay proposals) and secondly at alternative locations (existing port productivity gains and new developments). This section also considers the related issue of the potential for the transhipment of containers as well as the employment and economic implications of the Dibden Bay proposals.

Existing Port of Southampton
The Port of Southampton handled 921,000 TEUs in 1999. (There have been announcements that the Port handled over 1 million TEUs in 2000). ABP's submission states that possible improvements will be sufficient to raise the capacity of Southampton Container Terminal to about 1.8 million TEUs per annum by 2011. In addition, extending the existing docks was also considered by ABP. This analysis included consideration of options of utilising Berths 201/202, reclaiming land between Mayflower Park, Town Quay and Royal Pier, and providing decked parking for storage of vehicles handled by the Port. Using Berths 201/202 adjoining the existing Southampton Container Terminal was not considered viable, as there would be inadequate land and it would be at the expense of a nationally significant roll on/roll off facility. The Royal Pier area possibility was not considered practicable, economically viable or environmentally acceptable, involving damaging the ferry link with Hythe and affecting the listed Royal Pier. ABP considered that decking of car parking areas and other potential measures would do very little to meet the needs of deep-sea containers. ABP also considered developing port facilities elsewhere in Southampton Water.
ABP's submitted documents show that there is already the possibility of a capacity virtually double Southampton's container throughput in 1999. It is understood from Southampton Container Terminal Limited that consideration has been given to the utilisation of Berths 201/202 for additional container facilities. Southampton Container Terminal Limited has stated that, at the moment, for its 5 years forward plan, it is concentrating on achieving more efficient operations on the existing site. It is not seeking an additional berth as part of this 5 years plan. However, it has indicated that it has not ruled out the use of Berths 201/202 in the future, although it has constrained back-up land and works would be necessary to achieve a deep-water berth. The agreement of ABP, as the landowner, would be necessary to utilise the berths. Separately, consultants to the County Council have advised that it is possible that the use of Berths 201/202 for container operations could potentially increase capacity at Southampton by about a further 400,000 TEUs per annum. It is worth noting that there has also been a recent announcement that the area around Royal Pier could be reclaimed for a commercial/residential development involving relocating ferry facilities and maintaining the listed building. Whilst not representing an ideal location for a container operation, the Royal Pier area could have been used for the relocation of other port uses which could have potentially released more space for container operations. The decking of stored vehicles or a rearrangement of this method of operation could create other areas within Southampton Port that could be used for container handling operations. It can therefore be concluded that ABP's submission is based on an underestimate of the potential for the existing Port to handle demand at Southampton.

Dibden Bay Proposals
ABP has put forward Dibden Bay as the only option available. It considers that it meets the requirements of size, shape and access to road and rail networks. It considers that it makes the maximum use of existing infrastructure.
The proposed utilisation rates for the terminal are actually quite low (at around 1,200 TEUs per metre of quay per annum) for a front-rank UK terminal. These levels are virtually achieved now at Felixstowe. There are some assumptions about container dwell time that need examination. ABP also relies on a particular formula for defining capacity. This may not be appropriate given dwell time and berth productivity concerns. The lack of consideration of the future size of container vessels is another weakness in the approach. This could affect terminal layout considerations. The report seems to identify current berth sizes (350 metres 'Post-Panamax') as a limit. If much larger vessels are introduced there may be implications for the layout. ABP's submission does not consider this matter. It is considered that the implementation of the Dibden Terminal could ultimately lead to a much greater throughput than that put forward by ABP.

Alternative Port Developments
There are two aspects to the consideration of alternative port developments - increased productivity at existing ports, and the provision of new capacity. ABP's analysis assumes productivity at existing major ports will not grow by more than 20% by 2011 (1.4% per annum). This equates to an average quay productivity in 2011 of 1,250 TEUs per metre per annum. With regard to new capacity, despite noting the existence of other schemes at Bathside Bay, Shellhaven and the British Gas (BG) site on the Isle of Grain, ABP's projections only assume an extension of Thamesport, Tilbury and Felixstowe.
On the question of productivity, ABP's studies simply assume a further increase across the board for UK ports. Although moving in the correct direction this is simply an arbitrary assumption. Given the importance of accurately defining the true UK port capacity a far more rigorous assessment is required.
Current quay productivity levels at Felixstowe are already close to the figure assumed by ABP as an average for 2011. They also do not represent the maximum possible level at Felixstowe. Hutchison Ports (UK) Limited plans to further significantly boost productivity levels in the next few years. Annual productivity could then be about 1,400 TEUs per metre of quay. There is no reason why other major UK facilities with a similar customer base should not also achieve these levels with correct investment and operational regimes. In addition there is also the scope to boost the capacity of smaller UK facilities. An effective forecast of the capacity of the UK would include a series of specific reviews of the situation in individual terminals. This has not been undertaken by ABP.
With regard to new terminal capacity in the UK, ABP's analysis is also partial, particularly in respect of its treatment of schemes, such as Bathside Bay, Shellhaven and the BG site (Isle of Grain). Bathside Bay, which adjoins Harwich International Port, is proposed as a new container handling facility. A 1988 Act of Parliament permits the construction of works that could form a new port. It is the intention of the new owner Hutchison Ports (UK) Limited to commence the development within about 15 months. The company has indicated that when complete the development will provide capacity for 1.7 million TEUs per annum, with a quay length of over 1,400 metres for four deep- sea container vessels.
P & O has signed an agreement with Shell UK Limited which is expected to lead to the redevelopment of the Shellhaven refinery site on the River Thames into a new container port. P & O has estimated that when fully developed the port could handle about 3.5 million TEUs per annum with a 3,000 metres long quay providing berths for up to 10 vessels. This development is subject to necessary consents. However, the foreshore and development land have no national or international environmental designations. The operation of the port is likely to require a deepening of the approach channel in the River Thames. It is understood that a minimum depth of 14 metres is being considered but details of the implications of any dredging are not yet available.
The BG site at the Isle of Grain adjoins Thamesport. This scheme is not as advanced as others. No permissions currently exist for a container port development but the site is a former oil refinery with a 900 metres long frontage capable of providing three berths with an ultimate capacity of about 1 million TEUs. There are no nature conservation designations along the waterfront of the BG site.
It can be concluded therefore that ABP's submission fails to adequately assess the potential UK container port provision.
The analysis of development of container port capacity in the North Continent by ABP is also partial. By the time of the submission several major announcements and commitments had been made with regard to container capacity in North Europe. Considerable excess capacity may occur in the North Continent market. This will have the effect of boosting competitive pressures for both transshipment hub cargoes from these terminals and also increase the role of feeding containers to smaller UK ports.

Transhipment
ABP has assumed that the Dibden Terminal will achieve a market share of 30% transhipment business (containers that are unloaded from one ship and leave the port on a different ship). This assumption is also used for the assessment of the number of containers that will leave the new port facilities either by road or rail.
It is far from clear that these predictions will develop as assumed. Container volumes do not, per se, ensure transhipment. Thirty percent is not typical at the main UK ports but rather a maximum level that is sometimes achieved. Indeed, it could be predicted that Felixstowe's current transhipment at 30% could be halved by the loss of one service to Antwerp. An accurate assessment of potential transhipment market share will depend on how a specific port meets certain criteria. It is therefore apparent that a large part of the demand projected for the Dibden Terminal is predicated on what might be an over- optimistic view of the role of the terminal in the North European transhipment market.
A reduction in performance in this sector will adversely affect overall demand growth and alter the implications for inland distribution. Greater stress will be placed upon the road and rail links if the port reaches its planned capacity but transhipment develops more slowly.

Employment
The Environmental Statement indicates that on average 1,100 people will be employed in construction activities at Dibden Terminal throughout the 10 years which it takes to build (with a further 400 jobs arising indirectly). Approximately, 1,700 jobs are predicted to be created once the terminal is fully operational, in day to day operations and in associated business and regulatory functions. As a result of the increased spending from wages and salaries of those who take up these 1,700 jobs, and purchases the port makes from other businesses, a further 700 'multiplier' jobs will be created in the London and South East Region, of which 350 will be in the Southampton area. ABP has also concluded that 'doing nothing' would inevitably lead to a downturn in Southampton's fortunes as a major deep-sea container port. ABP feel it is not a realistic option and if it were to happen by default it would have significant adverse national, regional and local impacts.
The Port of Southampton currently plays a significant role in the local economy and the development of new container handling facilities would undoubtedly have positive benefits for employment and local businesses.
Although ABP's studies on employment are extensive, there are concerns about the methodologies used in the assessment. Employment will be a function of the demand for the terminal rather than the rated capacity of the development, and employment generated may be much smaller. It is felt that the level of construction benefits is considerably overstated and the presentation of the operational benefits is unclear and appears to double count the 'multiplier jobs'. Taking the constructional and operational phases of the proposed development together, the Environmental Statement infers a likely total estimate of 3,900 jobs. It is felt that the total jobs created is likely to be only about half of this figure. No information is put forward by ABP on the extent to which there might be existing capacity or potential for productivity gains in associated businesses that will limit the need for additional employment.
The Port of Southampton is only one component of the 'cluster' of marine related activities in the area and relatively little evidence is provided to support the view that this will decline if the new terminal is not built. It is felt that significant parts of the marine 'cluster' have no direct physical or business link to the container traffic. They tend to operate independently and without the need for a deep water channel, particularly the ferries, pleasure craft and boat builders.
The consequences of failing to develop the proposed Dibden Terminal might also not be quite as extensive as claimed by ABP. Whilst the port and port related activities are undeniably a source of competitive advantage for Southampton and its region, it is not thought to be unique in that respect. Other strong sectors in the local economy that provide a sound basis for growth might include finance and insurance, and a new cluster might emerge from the applied science and technology Chilworth based Enterprise Hub, recently included by South East England Development Agency amongst the first five such hubs to be announced in the South East Region. Further examination of this whole issue should be considered.
The existing and new jobs expected to be created in the port mainly in manual occupations are clearly a benefit and would be difficult to replace if lost to the local economy. However there are a series of training initiatives under way at regional and local level which are intended to bridge the 'skills gap' and give local people better access to jobs in the new and growing knowledge-based sectors of industry. Also, the potentially negative impact of the proposed development on the existing visitor appeal of the New Forest or on the Solent and its associated jobs is not considered.
Whilst recognising that there would be important employment benefits arising from the proposals, it is considered that the calculations and conclusions presented by ABP show a number of methodological weaknesses and errors which together could result in significant reductions in the estimated level of economic benefit claimed for the development.

Financial Viability of the Proposals
The business case for the Dibden Bay port development is fundamental to the likelihood of the proposals being carried out. There is insufficient information provided by ABP to assess the financial viability of the scheme. In the absence of adequate information about the business case it is not possible to assess the likelihood or otherwise of the whole development being carried out and made available for container trade. If the development were to be commenced in circumstances where it transpired that the whole container port was not viable, the land would have been released on the basis of an alleged need for container capacity that was not actually being provided. ABP was informed in November 2000 of the County Council's request for more information on this matter but nothing more has been provided to date.
In such circumstances associated with the promoted terminal, the County Council would have expected to have seen a cost benefit analysis as well as financial justification for the proposals. In order for the proposals to be properly evaluated it is necessary for ABP to supply sufficient financial information to demonstrate how and in what manner the development will be constructed and an indication of its long-term viability.

OVERVIEW OF THE SUPPLY SITUATION
The issue of supply of container handling facilities is fundamental to the appraisal of need. As can be seen from above there is the potential for at least doubling the 1999 container throughput at Southampton without encroaching outside the existing port. In addition there are further prospects of existing UK ports improving on their productivity which would enhance their ability to handle more containers. If there were also to be a reduction in the amount of transhipment at existing ports, this would also release more capacity to handle in-bound containers for the UK.
The assessment by ABP of possible new port capacity is partial with regard to specific planned new additions. The major schemes proposed for Bathside Bay and Shellhaven could significantly alter the supply side situation. It is clear that the Dibden Terminal is simply one of a number of possibilities to meet UK requirements.
The Port of Southampton already serves a wide market and is significant for local businesses, and there would be improved employment and economic prospects associated with the development. However, ABP appears to have put forward an over-optimistic employment impact and has over-emphasised the economic benefits arising from the proposal.

THE QUESTION OF NEED
ABP considers that the need for extra capacity will be experienced as early as 2003 if users are not to experience increasing tariff rates and congestion at UK container ports. As a minimum ABP considers there will be a deficit of 2.4 quay kilometres in 2011 if no further investment is made beyond extending Tilbury, Thamesport and Felixstowe.
The range of UK container handling demand identified by the County Council's consultants (Ocean Shipping Consultants) is estimated to be 8.48 million TEUs to 9.25 million TEUs in 2010 and 10.3 million TEUs to 11.7 million TEUs in 2015. There are a number of scenarios put forward by Ocean Shipping Consultants that the County Council should consider. If all the new container handling capacity in the UK put forward by the project promoters were to be implemented on quoted schedules, the situation in 2010 would be very severe over-capacity. The consultants formulated one case assuming there was no development at Dibden Bay. In the circumstances of this case, UK handling capacity could be 11.1 million TEUs in 2010. There would therefore still be over-capacity in 2010 but not as severe as above. The consultants have also considered the situation up to 2015. Under Base Case demand conditions, the requirement for additional capacity after 2010 is placed at between zero and 1.41 million TEUs depending on the circumstances. If demand was to follow the Low Case, there would be no requirement for additional container handling capacity even with no development at Dibden Bay.

Taking an independent view of the market the consultants have concluded:

The provision of capacity at Dibden Bay will be a marginal requirement in the period to 2010, with it being possible to handle all anticipated demand at existing and other planned locations. However, the position will tighten after 2010 and by 2015 there will probably be a clear requirement for significant additional capacity. Dibden Bay will be well placed to provide this capacity. When considered purely from the viewpoint of supply and demand, authorisation for Dibden Bay is required for the period from 2010 onwards. The actual timing of the requirement for the terminal will be dependent upon the actual pace of demand growth between the range of base and low case conditions identified in this study. The market will be highly competitive and the actual role of Dibden Bay will be determined, not simply by the supply/demand balance, but also by the degree to which the new terminal is competitive with other emerging alternatives. Factors such as water depth, accessibility, achieved productivity, etc will be central to the success of the terminal in this highly competitive situation.

Officers consider therefore there is not a need case on market grounds for the early release of Dibden Bay.
Productivity gains at existing UK ports will not be sufficient to handle all the demand scenarios considered by the consultants. However, the consultant's conclusions in paragraph 5.98 above have been formulated on the basis of the existing port at Southampton handling about 1.4 million TEUs in the medium-term. As can be seen from paragraphs 5.69 and 5.70 above it could be possible for the existing port to handle over 2 million TEUs.
Officers therefore consider that there is significant Southampton supply side possibilities in the short/medium term, which represent using existing infrastructure and existing port land, without having to develop Dibden Bay.
The potential economic/employment benefits arising from the development of the Dibden Terminal, whilst important, are not considered as large as put forward by ABP. There are also concerns about the financial viability of the proposals.
In formulating its case ABP has taken a particular approach towards alternatives to Dibden Bay. ABP has indicated in the Environmental Statement that the main alternative sites considered were extending the existing docks and developing port facilities elsewhere in Southampton Water. ABP considered these the only courses of action that might meet the identified need and the use of other ports in the UK would not meet the needs of the Port of Southampton.
The Environmental Impact Regulations state that information which should be provided with an Environmental Statement should include an outline of the main alternatives studied by the developer. The options considered at the existing port or in Southampton Water may indeed be the only alternatives studied by the developer, but it is considered that this is partial analysis. ABP indicates that the proposal is part of a national need and it would be appropriate therefore to consider national alternatives. It is felt that a reasonable approach would have involved the assessment of known alternative container handling sites -in fact it was expected this information would be submitted as ABP indicated in its scoping document (1997) that analysis of alternative courses of action would include the potential for developing other ports and alternative sites. Given also the views expressed above on Appropriate Assessment, alternative ports and sites should be examined in the question of need.
As noted above, Bathside Bay has permission for appropriate works. Whether there are any other impediments to completion of this project is still being examined. The alternative port development at Shellhaven will still require certain permissions. However, the main land area is a brownfield site and the frontage foreshore has no nature conservation designations. The impact of any dredging required is not yet known.
Overall, it is considered that the demand/supply situation indicates that the need for port development at Dibden Bay is not as strong as put forward by ABP. There is not a case for early release of the land and there are other major projects which, until shown otherwise, could fulfil the UK requirement for container handling capacity for a considerable number of years. On a precautionary approach, these would seem to represent more appropriate development options than the need now to commit a greenfield site at Dibden Bay.

OVERALL APPRAISAL IN RELATION TO POLICY FRAMEWORK
The above appraisal can now be set within a policy context at national, regional and development plan level.
At the national scale the National Ports Policy indicates there would be support for new port development where there is a clear need but each case will be determined on its merits. Particular cases must be considered within the strategic context provided by regional planning guidance and regional transport strategies. New port development must be sustainable, produce significant additional benefits, use certain tests and be demonstrably commercially viable. The ABP proposal does not fulfil the criteria put forward. On a sequential test basis, proposals which have existing permission or involve brownfield land offer better opportunities for making the best use of operational land or existing infrastructure than a greenfield site. Dibden Bay is the least preferable solution in these circumstances. The proposal has also failed to undertake some of the tests identified in PPG7 and PPG9.
At the regional level the proposal does not conform to Policy T7 of RPG9. It is not considered sustainable on the basis of inadequate mitigation. It also does not represent "making the best use of existing facilities." Given that RPG9 indicates that a pan-regional study of ports is required to inform the next round of regional planning guidance, the proposal could be considered premature.
At the development plan level, the proposal can first be tested against Policy EC6. For this policy the need for the development has to outweigh its impact on nature conservation, the New Forest or local communities and provide sufficient mitigation and achieve a satisfactory access.
The above assessment of need considers that the case for the early release of Dibden Bay is not proven. Its requirement even after 2010 is considered open to question and is dependent on an array of assumptions.
There will be a major adverse effect on the integrity of internationally designated nature conservation sites. The proposed creek does not represent adequate replacement habitat and the proposed recharge of the Hythe/Cadland foreshore may be impracticable and unacceptable.
With regard to the New Forest it is not felt that a rigorous enough case has been put forward to permit such a development within an area of equivalent status to a National Park. Since the Countryside Agency's draft consultation includes the whole site within the proposed New Forest National Park, exceptional circumstances would have to be identified to proceed with the project. There will be a substantial impact on landscape grounds arising from the Dibden Bay proposal and a loss of an important visual link between the Forest and the water.
As indicated in paragraphs 5.37 to 5.39 above there will be a strategic impact on local communities.
On transport grounds it is considered that ABP has not yet provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the predicted traffic generation from the terminal. At this time it is therefore considered that the proposals put forward by ABP are unacceptable to adequately cater for future traffic demand. Further discussion will need to take place with ABP's consultants. The rail impacts, environmental implications of the transport proposals and other matters need further consideration.
It is therefore considered that at the development plan level the proposal does not conform with Policy EC6 of the Hampshire County Structure Plan Review as, given the above analysis, it does not demonstrate that the need for the development outweighs its impact on areas of importance for nature conservation, the New Forest or local communities, and it is felt that the proposals are unlikely to provide a satisfactory transport access for the development. Insufficient provision is made to offset the impact of the proposal.
It can also be concluded from the above appraisal that the proposals do not conform to Structure Plan policies on strategic gaps (G2), the New Forest (NF1), transport (T5, T6), rural areas (C1), the coast (C7), landscape (E6, E9), nature conservation (E10, E11), and minerals and waste (MW4).
The proposed aggregates wharf does not conform with Policy 22 of the Minerals and Waste Local Plan, in that the development would have unacceptable environmental impact.

CONCLUSIONS
6.1 In terms of need it is certainly not a case of an overwhelming requirement for Dibden Bay with no other alternatives in sight. Although demand will continue to grow, Dibden Terminal is simply one possibility for port development to meet UK requirements. It has to be recognised that some schemes also require regulatory approval. Indeed, the simultaneous development of all the potential projects would result in a severe over-capacity position in the UK in 2010.
ABP's treatment of alternatives does not meet the particular circumstances of this case. The project even in part is to service growth in container trade for the UK economy as a whole. It involves the creation of a new container port using different inland road and rail connections. The decision therefore merits consideration whether alternative locations in the UK outside Southampton Water could meet the need.
On a sequential basis other 'planned' schemes involve making the best use of existing infrastructure by utilising existing permissions or using previously developed land, such as redundant oil refineries. Dibden Bay represents a major commitment on a greenfield site and is therefore, on this basis and the current information, the least preferable.
ABP needs to undertake further analysis in certain areas as indicated in the above appraisal. The National Ports Policy would also seem to point to a NATA assessment being undertaken over a range of options.
The environmental impact of the proposed development is dramatic. On nature conservation grounds it affects the integrity of European sites. The proposed creek should be viewed as compensation and not mitigation as put forward by ABP. The creek does not represent 'like for like' replacement of the foreshore. The recharge may also need to be considered as compensation. The recharge is a solution on an untested scale and doubts are raised on its feasibility. There are major implications on National Park and landscape grounds - there will be a detrimental effect on the New Forest.
On transport there are a number of outstanding issues of significance in the submission by ABP that at this stage are considered unacceptable. It is felt that at this time there is insufficient evidence to remove all concerns about the transport issues and that an objection on transport should be agreed.
The marine issues also need further investigation. As it stands, officers need to be convinced that a new terminal at Dibden Bay would not require a deeper main channel to be operationally viable for new larger container ships as viewed by the industry. The environmental consequences of a deeper main channel could be considerable and this needs to be investigated, evaluated and taken into account in any decision on Dibden Bay. The County Council will need to appoint consultants to assist on further work on this matter.
There are other outstanding matters of investigation and analysis by the County Council. These will be continued by officers and in some cases further work will be needed by existing consultants as well as the appointment of new consultants to cover areas of concern.
Overall, on the basis of the work done to date and the information available, officers do not feel that it has been demonstrated that the need for the development outweighs its environmental and transportation impact. It is not considered sustainable development. On a precautionary approach, it would not seem to represent the most appropriate development option to justify the release of this greenfield site at the present time. It is considered that the development does not conform to national, regional or development plan policies. It is contrary to Hampshire County Structure Plan Policy EC6 and other policies.
It is therefore recommended that the County Council formally objects to the proposed Dibden Bay development. The County Council should present this case to the forthcoming Public Inquiry. The DETR, ABP, New Forest District Council and Southampton City Council should be informed of this view. Other arrangements should be put in place to assist in pursuing the objection to the Dibden Bay proposal.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions be informed that the County Council considers that the Secretary of State should not make the Harbour Revision Order, Transport and Works Act Order or approve any other consents related to the Dibden Bay port development as it does not conform to national ports policy, draft revised Regional Policy Guidance Note 9 Policy T7, and Hampshire County Structure Plan (Review) Policies EC6, G2, NF1, T5, T6, C1, C7, E6, E9, E10 and E11.
That the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions be informed that the County Council formally objects to the proposed port development at Dibden Bay in relation to the above policy framework in recommendation 1 with regard to:
(i) the need for the development;
(ii) the treatment of alternatives and their ability to provide better solutions to the development;
(iii) the impact on the New Forest;
(iv) nature conservation implications;
(v) landscape impact;
(vi) transport issues;
(vii) employment implications;
(viii) minerals and waste matters;
(ix) marine issues;
(x) the strategic impact on local communities;
(xi) viability of the proposals;
(xii) rights of way issues; and
(xiii) any other detailed issues which may arise from further examination of the proposals.
In addition matters relating to archaeology require further discussion with ABP.
That the County Council considers that the Appropriate Assessment has not been adequately carried out by ABP and that it is contrary to guidance, and that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions should require that a new Appropriate Assessment be undertaken by ABP for consideration by all parties prior to the Public Inquiry.
That the County Council should present the objections outlined above to the forthcoming Public Inquiry.
That the County Planning Officer, County Surveyor and the Chief Executive be authorised to make appointments of appropriate consultants to pursue the above objections, subject to satisfactory budgetary provision being made.
That the appraisal of ABP's proposals continue with a view to resolving any objections.
That officers are instructed to continue discussions with ABP to seek a satisfactory resolution of the transport proposals and other aspects should Dibden Bay be permitted.
That the County Planning Officer, County Surveyor and Chief Executive be given authority in consultation with the Leader of the County Council and any appropriate Chairmen, to take any urgent action necessary to enable the County Council to respond quickly and effectively to any matters relating to pursuing the above objections to ABP's proposal at the forthcoming Public Inquiry.
That ABP, New Forest District Council and Southampton City Council be informed of this resolution.

Section 100 D - Local Government Act 1972 - background papers

The following documents disclose facts or matters on which this report, or an important part of it, is based and has been relied upon to a material extent in the preparation of this report.

NB the list excludes:

Published works.
Documents which disclose exempt or confidential information as defined in the Act.

TITLE	LOCATION
"The UK Container Port Market and the Need for Dibden Bay Development" - Ocean Shipping Consultants. "Background Paper on the Re-development of Berths 201 and 202" - High-Point Rendel. "Dibden Bay: A Critique of Economic - Employment Impacts" - Arup Economics and Planning.	County Planning Department

APPENDICES 1 AND 2

Material at this point in the source document was considered to be in a form unsuitable for display in HANTSNET and STAIRS. Therefore it has been removed. Please contact the owner of the screen for further information.

APPENDIX 3 TO FOLLOW AS SEPARATE DOCUMENT