Environmental groups criticize Britain port expansion proposals
Eight non-governmental environmental and transport organizations in the United Kingdom have joined forces to campaign against the British government’s plans to approve the expansion of individual port projects, rather than develop a national port policy.
The groups, which campaign under the name “Portswatch,” said the government ministers have yet to prove that more U.K. ports are needed, or say where they should go if they are.
The group urged that the potential of existing ports should be explored, and overall demand assessed nationally, rather than new port applications being considered alone. This would limit damage to legally protected wildlife sites and disruption to local communities, it said.
There are four proposals for major new U.K. ports, either at the planning stage or awaiting a decision by ministers. They are: the Dibden Bay proposal at Southampton; the London gateway “Shell Haven” proposal on the Thames estuary; the Bathside Bay proposal at Harwich, on the Stour and Orwell estuaries; and Felixstowe South. The latter is a redevelopment of existing port facilities, but would still involve the loss of 28 hectares of subtidal habitat due to increased dredging, Portswatch said.
In November, the British Parliament’s transport select committee said the government must consider individual applications in the context of national policy, and this may mean it cannot consider single projects in isolation. The committee called for planning at an integrated national level.
Portswatch criticized the British government’s reply last week to the Parliament committee, saying that ports were unlikely to become major development hubs in their own right, take land from nearby communities or place heavy burdens on road and rail infrastructure.