How to go about major port developments in estuaries: learning lessons from Dibden
Type:
Presented during:
WODCON XVII: "Dredging in a Sensitive Environment" - 2004, Hamburg, Germany
Authors:
Andrew Dodd
Abstract: The proposal to construct a major container port at Dibden Bay, Southampton (England) was rejected by the United Kingdom (UK) Government on 20 April 2004, the same day the public inquiry opened into the major container port proposal at Bathside Bay, Harwich (England). Each scheme reflects a different approach to the treatment of its ecological impacts on internationally important wildlife sites and serves to illustrate the lessons learned in recent years in the UK.
The UK Government rejected Dibden Bay for a number of reasons. Some of the most important reasons related to the impact of the scheme on wildlife. Of particular importance was how the conservation and decision-making requirements of European Union wildlife directives were addressed. Several issues contributed to the refusal including the assessment of ecological impacts and the nature of mitigation and compensation measures.
It is suggested that the experience from Dibden Bay strongly influenced the approach of the UK ports industry and nature conservation groups in other schemes, long before the Government announced its decision to refuse the Dibden project. For example, schemes at Immingham (on the river Humber), London Gateway (river Thames) and Bathside Bay have benefited from complete agreement on the nature, magnitude and risk associated with predicted ecological damage to internationally important wildlife sites. This provided the basis for detailed legal agreements on appropriate mitigation and, where necessary, habitat compensation. Before granting consent, the UK Government must still be satisfied that the proposals pass strict tests on alternative solutions and imperative reasons of overriding public interest.
The Dibden case has proved a critical turning point in how the UK port and nature conservation sectors approach port developments that affect internationally important estuarine sites.
Keywords: Habitats Directive, appropriate assessment, alternative solutions, public interest, mitigation, compensation.