Dibden Bay Inquiry - Inspector's Report

TITLE \* MERGEFORMAT

Dibden Bay Inquiry - Inspector's ReportFront Cover

Report to the First Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Transport

The Planning Inspectorate

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Temple Quay

Bristol BS1 6PN

( GTN 1371 8000

by Michael Hurley BA DipTP MRTPI

Date

an Inspector appointed by the Secretaries of State

22 Sept 2003

HARBOURS ACT 1964

TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990

ACQUISITION OF LAND ACT 1981

APPLICATIONS FOR ORDERS, PLANNING PERMISSIONS

AND AN EXCHANGE LAND CERTIFICATE

by

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS

in connection with

THE PROPOSED DIBDEN TERMINAL

Land in

NEW FOREST DISTRICT

1 Introduction

1.1 I was appointed to hold an Inquiry (or more strictly a series of concurrent Inquiries) into various applications made by Associated British Ports (ABP) in connection with their proposal to develop a new deep-water container terminal at Dibden Bay, Hampshire. The subjects of the Inquiry were:

An application for an Order to be made under Section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964, in the form of the draft Port of Southampton (Dibden Terminal) Harbour Revision Order 2000 (the HRO).

An application for an Order to be made under Sections 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, in the form of the draft Fawley Branch Line Improvements Order 2000 (the TWAO).

A planning application (ref. 70243) dated 2 October 2000, for alterations to the A326 between the Michigan Way Roundabout, Totton, and the Pilgrim Inn, Marchwood; and to the A326 and Hythe Road, between the Pilgrim Inn and Veal's Lane, Marchwood. The proposed alterations include the widening of the A326, the signalisation of junctions, the construction of a Terminal Access Road junction, bridgeworks, earthworks and associated landscaping.

A planning application (ref. 75359) dated 19 June 2002, for the widening of the Ashurst Railway Bridge on the A326 at Totton, and for the extension of a proposed footway/cycleway at Hythe Road and Veal's Lane Marchwood.

Two planning applications (refs. 70255 and 72426) respectively dated 2 October 2000 and 2 July 2001, for the erection of noise barriers alongside parts of the Fawley Branch Railway Line.

An application for an Order to be made under Section 248 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to authorise the stopping up of parts of the existing highway at Hythe Road, Marchwood.

An application for a Certificate under Section 19 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1981, relating to the provision of land at West Cliff Hall in exchange for open space at the Hythe Marina Bund.

1.2 The four planning applications were originally made to the New Forest District Council as local planning authority, but were called in by the Secretary of State for his own determination under Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The reasons for calling in the applications were as follows:

The Secretary of State is of the opinion that the applications are such that he ought to decide them himself because of their association with proposals for the development of port facilities at Dibden Bay which have been submitted to him for approval.

1.3 Notices of the applications for the HRO, the TWAO, the Exchange Land Certificate and the Stopping-up Order were published in accordance with the statutory requirements. A total of 6,141 persons or organisations objected to the proposed development. This includes those who made representations to the Secretary of State in respect of the Orders and those who made representations to the New Forest District Council in respect of the planning applications. In a substantial majority of cases, objectors commented on the project as a whole, and did not differentiate between the various applications. In addition to the objections, there were 190 other representations made, including 172 expressions of support for the proposed development.

1.4 A number of objections have now been withdrawn. These include objections to the proposed compulsory purchase provisions in the TWAO that were made by Freightliner Ltd; Corrall's Coal; Railtrack Ltd; and English Welsh and Scottish Railways Ltd. Other objections that have now been withdrawn include those made by the Rail Freight Group; Transco plc; Southern Water Services Ltd; Laporte Performance Chemicals Ltd; Shanks Chemical Services Ltd; EniChem UK Ltd; and Cable and Wireless UK Services Ltd. In preparing this report I have taken account of all the remaining objections, expressions of support for the proposed development, and other representations.

1.5 Amended application plans for the A326 improvements (ref. 70243) and the Fawley Branch Line noise barriers (refs. 70255 and 72426) were submitted on 11 October 2002. These amendments were subsequently advertised by the New Forest District Council. No objections were made to the applications being determined on the basis of the amended plans. The amended plans are documents CD/ABP/123 and 124 respectively.

1.6 The draft HRO and the draft TWAO are the subject of separate Environmental Statements (CD/ABP/3 and CD/ABP/6). These Environmental Statements (ES) are supported by a series of Technical Statements (CD/ABP/13 to CD/ABP/68 and CD/ABP/72). In addition, ABP have produced two supplementary Environmental Statements. The first of these deals with a proposed modification to the HRO in respect of the Hythe Marina Bund (CD/ABP/114). The second deals with the proposed alterations to the Ashurst Railway Bridge and the Hythe Road Footpath Extension (CD/ABP/116). I have taken account of this environmental information in preparing this report.

1.7 The Secretary of State announced his decision to hold a Public Inquiry on 31 January 2001. On 6 February 2001 all those who had made representations were notified that the Code of Practice for Major Planning Inquiries, as set out in Annex 4 of Circular 5/2000, would be applied as appropriate.

1.8 An Inquiry Secretariat was established in accordance with the Code of Practice. This was led by Bob Wiggins, the Inquiry Manager. Other members of the Secretariat included Val Lucas, the Programme Officer; and Louise Kavanagh, the Documents Officer.

1.9 Andrew Phillipson BSc CEng FICE MIHT was appointed Deputy Inspector. He was present throughout the Inquiry and has assisted me in the preparation of this report. Chris Gossop BSc MA PhD MRTPI was appointed Assistant Inspector. He attended those parts of the Inquiry that dealt with nature conservation, and has assisted me with the preparation of the corresponding parts of this report. Professor Keith Dyer MSc PhD FGS, who is a professorial research fellow at the Institute of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, was appointed as Assessor, to advise me on erosion, sedimentation and related matters. He attended the relevant parts of the Inquiry and his report is attached at Appendix 1.

1.10 I wish to record my appreciation for the work undertaken by Mr Phillipson, Dr Gossop, Professor Dyer and the members of the Secretariat. They each made a considerable contribution to the Inquiry, which should not pass without acknowledgement.

Pre-Inquiry Procedures

1.11 A register of those wishing to participate in the Inquiry was compiled in accordance with the Code of Practice. In all, 34 participants were listed in Part 1 of the register. Each of these was required to produce a Statement of Case. The Part 1 participants played a major role in the Inquiry, calling and cross-examining witnesses. In addition there were 101 participants listed in Part 2 of the register. Most of these chose to make oral statements. However, they neither called nor cross-examined witnesses. A list of the persons who appeared at the Inquiry is provided in Appendix 2.

1.12 I held a Pre-Inquiry Meeting at the Queen Elizabeth 2 Terminal in Southampton on 23 April 2001. A note of the matters arising at that meeting was sent to all those who had made representations and is attached at Appendix 3. At the Pre-Inquiry Meeting, it was established that the Inquiry would be organised on a topic basis.

1.13 Immediately following the Pre-Inquiry Meeting, a Joint Working Party was established to facilitate agreement between prospective participants prior to the Inquiry. This was chaired by Mr Phillipson. The Joint Working Party set up a series of Joint Data Groups (JDG) each of which produced an Agreed Statement of Fact. These statements covered most of the proposed inquiry topics (CD/GEN/1 to CD/GEN/20A). The applicants and the local planning authority decided that the Agreed Statements of Fact, which they had jointly endorsed, should constitute their Agreed Statement of Common Ground for the purposes of Rule 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. The Joint Working Party was formally dissolved before the Inquiry opened. However, several JDGs continued to meet and subsequently deposited supplementary Agreed Statements of Fact.

1.14 Arrangements were made to establish a library of inquiry documents. This contained a set of core documents suggested by inquiry participants, as well as all the documents produced by witnesses. The library documents were available for public inspection throughout the Inquiry, and copying facilities were provided. A list of documents is provided at Appendix 4, together with an explanatory note on the document numbering system.

1.15 On 25 July 2001 the Secretary of State issued a statement setting out the matters about which he particularly wished to be informed for the purposes of his consideration of the applications. This is reproduced in Appendix 5.

1.16 Following the Pre-Inquiry Meeting, the Inquiry Secretariat issued a series of Advice Notes dealing with various procedural matters. Further Advice Notes were issued during the course of the Inquiry as the need arose. These can be found in Appendix 6. An inquiry website was also established. The material on the website included the inquiry programme, the register of participants, the list of matters about which the Secretary of State particularly wished to be informed, the list of inquiry documents and the Advice Notes.

Site Visits

1.17 Mr Phillipson and I made a series of accompanied site inspections, before during and after the Inquiry. These included inspections of:

the application sites (including the Fawley Branch Railway Line);

the Fawley Refinery; the premises of EniChem UK Ltd; the Pilgrim Inn at Marchwood; and the Sea Mounting Centre, Marchwood (which is known locally as the Marchwood Military Port and is referred to as such in this report);

Southampton Docks and the Southampton Container Terminal (SCT).

In addition we saw the application sites from Southampton Water; and from various points in the City of Southampton and the New Forest District (including several private properties as well as public places). We observed buoys placed in Southampton Water along the quay line of the proposed Terminal; and we twice observed balloons flown to simulate the height of the proposed quayside cranes.

1.18 In January 2002, we observed wintering waterfowl at Dibden Bay and other sites adjacent to Southampton Water. In June 2002, we viewed the natural features of the HRO site in summertime.

1.19 We made an accompanied nocturnal visit to locations in Hythe, Marchwood and Southampton in order to witness and measure existing noise levels. We also took an accompanied nocturnal cruise along Southampton Water to observe the impact of existing artificial lighting and areas of darkness. In November 2002, we made an accompanied inspection of the ro-ro carrier "Falstaff" in Southampton Docks, at which noise measurements were taken.

1.20 We made accompanied visits to Shellhaven and to Felixstowe (where the noise from the existing port was measured); and an unaccompanied visit to Bathside Bay. During the course of the Inquiry we also made numerous unaccompanied visits to see features and locations that had been referred to in evidence. These included a number of nocturnal visits.

The Inquiry

1.21 The Inquiry opened on 27 November 2001 at the Applemore Sports Centre, Hythe. After the first week, it transferred to the Ferry Terminal, European Way, Southampton. A number of people expressed their dissatisfaction at the decision to hold the main part of the Inquiry outside of the New Forest District. However, special local sessions for Part 2 participants were held at Applemore College, Hythe, on 29-31 October 2002. These included evening sessions.

1.22 A daily transcript of the inquiry proceedings was produced and placed on the inquiry website. I must commend the transcript writers for the excellent service they provided. The transcripts are included with the inquiry documents.

1.23 During the Inquiry, the Secretariat received a number of items of correspondence from Messrs MacFarlanes, who acted for the promoters of the proposed London Gateway development at Shellhaven in Essex. MacFarlanes made it clear that their clients were not objecting to the proposed Dibden Terminal, and that they were not a party to the Dibden Terminal Inquiry. The purpose of their submissions was to draw attention to alleged inaccuracies in the evidence that had been given and examined at the Inquiry, and published in the daily transcripts. In the interests of openness, I treated these items of correspondence as inquiry documents and disclosed them to inquiry participants. They are contained in CD/INQ/9 to 12, 28 and 29. Their contents are self-explanatory.

1.24 The Secretariat also received an unsolicited copy of the Environmental Statement produced in respect of the London Gateway proposals, together with a voluminous quantity of supporting documentation. This material was placed in the inquiry library. I announced that any participant who wished to draw any part of it to the Inquiry's attention could do so, if necessary by copying relevant extracts which would then be treated as inquiry documents. However, I indicated that this material would not otherwise be treated as an inquiry document. I also indicated that neither the Deputy Inspector nor I would consider any part of it that was not expressly brought to our attention by an inquiry participant.

1.25 During the Inquiry, I made it clear that I did not consider that it would be appropriate for me to attempt to rank proposals for container terminals (such as those at Dibden Bay, London Gateway and Bathside Bay) in order of merit (CD/INQ/8 and CD/INQ/16). It was not the function of the Dibden Terminal Inquiry to investigate other possible development proposals in great detail; and it is not within my remit to express a view about whether permission should be granted for any other scheme. I am conscious of the fact that neither the promoters of other schemes, nor prospective objectors to them, had any reason to attend the Dibden Terminal Inquiry in order to advance their arguments.

1.26 However, evidence about the credibility and feasibility of proposed container port developments elsewhere was admitted, in order to test the potential ability of those projects to contribute to the national requirement for container handling capacity. In this connection, I note that in his letter of 25 July 2001, the Secretary of State specifically sought information to help him decide whether there are alternative solutions to the Dibden Terminal scheme.

1.27 In the closing stages of the Inquiry, I received the draft of a legal agreement between ABP and the Environment Agency, dated 27 November 2002 (CD/ABP/95J, Tab 3). This had not been signed and sealed by the time the Inquiry closed; but Counsel for ABP invited me to proceed on the basis that the document would be duly signed. It has subsequently come to my attention, through the Inquiry Secretariat, that the text of the agreement as eventually signed may have been altered after the close of the Inquiry. For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that the relevant references in this report are to the final draft agreement as considered at the Inquiry, and take no account of any subsequent alterations.

1.28 On the final day of the Inquiry, I received the drafts of an agreement and an undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (ABP/0/149). I understand that these have now been signed and sealed in the form considered at the Inquiry.

1.29 The Inquiry closed on 12 December 2002, having sat on a total of 120 days.

1.30 Sadly, I must report that I have been informed that two of those who addressed the Inquiry have since passed away. Mr Paul Whitehouse and Councillor Nick Smith each made a considerable contribution to the Inquiry's work. May they now rest in peace.

1.31 Inevitably some months have elapsed between the close of the Inquiry and the completion of this report. During that time, material circumstances may have changed. For instance, proposals relating to container port developments elsewhere in the country may have progressed; new policies may have been introduced; new studies may have been published; and a final decision may have been reached with regard to the boundary of the New Forest National Park. However, my conclusions and recommendations are based on the evidence considered at the Inquiry and take no account of subsequent events.

Structure of this Report

1.32 Chapter 2 of this report contains a description of the application sites and the surrounding areas. The following chapters set out the gist of the cases made by each of the inquiry participants. Their submissions (including any legal submissions) and the main points given in evidence are summarised, case by case. The main points made by those who made written representations are also noted. The final chapter contains my conclusions and recommendations. A list of the abbreviations used in this report is included at Appendix 7, together with a list of Government and similar policy documents referred to by shortened titles.

The Application Sites and Their Surroundings

The Dibden Reclaim and Foreshore

1.33 The site of the proposed Dibden Terminal is on the west bank of the River Test, just above the point at which that river joins the River Itchen to form Southampton Water (ES, Figure 4.1). For the most part, the proposed Terminal would occupy land that has been reclaimed from the inter-tidal area by the deposit of dredgings. The Dibden Reclaim covers approximately 240ha and has a river frontage of about 2.1km. The distance between the river frontage and the landward edge of the Reclaim (the former shoreline) varies from about 0.6km to 1.1km. The whole of the Reclaim is within the area covered by the draft HRO (ES, Figure 3.1, Area 1).

1.34 The Reclaim is generally level (NFDC/7/3, p45). At the river's edge its surface rises to heights of between 4 and 7m AOD. There is a barely perceptible fall across the site from east to west. On its landward side, the surface of the Reclaim is between about 3 and 4m AOD. Surface water from the Reclaim drains in a westerly direction. After prolonged rainfall the western part of this land becomes waterlogged, and ephemeral ponds form there during the winter (NFDC7/3, p51).

1.35 The Reclaim is bounded and subdivided by engineered bunds of granular material. These were formed to contain the dredgings as they were pumped ashore. The dredgings have now dried out, and today the Reclaim provides rough grazing land. It is divided into large fields, which are separated from one another by post and wire fences. A small area of scrub has developed at the northern corner of the Reclaim. Otherwise the area is characterised by open grassland with little vegetation of significant height (NFDC7/4, Frontispiece and Photos NW-A1 to NW-A8). There is no right of public access to the Reclaim.

1.36 A variety of materials have been placed along the Reclaim's shoreline, to protect the land from erosion. These include the remains of "Mulberry Harbour" components, which were manufactured nearby during World War II. The Dibden foreshore consists of the remnant of the inter-tidal mudflat, which previously extended across the site of the Reclaim (NFDC7/3, p48). Up to 76ha of mudflat is exposed at low water. The exposed mud provides a feeding ground for various waterfowl. During my winter site visit, I saw numerous birds here, including Oystercatcher, Grey Plover and Dunlin. At high water, the Dibden foreshore is entirely submerged.

1.37 In addition to including the Dibden foreshore, the area covered by the draft HRO also encompasses a sub-tidal area, which extends eastwards up to the main shipping channel.

Hythe Marina Village, Hythe, and the Hythe to Cadland Foreshore

1.38 At its south-eastern end, the Dibden Reclaim is separated from Hythe Marina Village by an artificial mound, known as the Hythe Marina Bund. The Bund is of variable height, rising to a maximum of about 10m AOD. It runs inland from the shoreline for a distance of about 400m; and is about 100m wide. The Bund has been attractively landscaped, and is accessible to the public by means of clearly defined pathways (HMV/0/1, Section 2, Photos 3 to 6 and Plan 7). From it there are fine views over Southampton Water, and across the Dibden Reclaim towards the New Forest. Immediately adjacent to the shore, a rectangular area of about 0.4ha has been excluded from the Hythe Marina Bund to accommodate a commercial boatyard. The Bund and boatyard are within the area covered by the draft HRO. The public open space on the Hythe Marina Bund, which has an area of about 3.6ha, is the subject of the proposed Exchange Land Certificate (CD/ABP/70).

1.39 Hythe Marina Village occupies land reclaimed from Southampton Water, and forms part of the built-up area of Hythe. It is a recently completed, high-quality development, containing 224 dwellings and a 472-berth marina, as well as some shops and a public house (HMV/0/2, Sheets 5 to 9). Vessels enter and leave the marina by means of a lock. Hythe Marina Village is outside the area covered by the draft HRO. However, its closest dwellings are within about 10m of the Order land, across Endeavour Way (HMV/0/1, Section 1, Plan 4).

1.40 Hythe Marina Village is generally peaceful, but not completely silent. Particular sources of noise include road traffic; aircraft travelling to and from Southampton Airport; the passage of vessels on Southampton Water; the railway on Hythe Pier; and the operation of Southampton Docks. At night, the street lighting is subdued, and parts of the development are relatively quiet for long periods. However, from time to time the near silence is broken, for instance by the sound of a passing plane or ship, or by other forms of activity.

1.41 Hythe is a substantial settlement, which has merged with Dibden Purlieu to form a continuous built-up area. The town centre includes a pedestrianised shopping area. Its buildings are mostly on a domestic scale, and the townscape has a particular charm. There is a Victorian pier, from which a regular passenger ferry service provides access to Southampton. A pier railway carries passengers to and from the ferry.

1.42 RAF Hythe (also known as the Hythe NATO Base) is located on the shore of Southampton Water at the southern end of the built-up area. It includes a jetty and moorings, and is currently used by the US military for the maintenance of vessels. The moorings of the Hythe Sailing Club lie a little to the south of RAF Hythe.

1.43 Approximately 219ha of the foreshore to the south of Hythe, between the Hythe Sailing Club and Cadland Creek, is included within the draft HRO (ES, Figure 3.1, Area 10). This area consists of both saltmarsh and inter-tidal mudflat. The saltmarsh, which covers an area of about 75ha, consists largely of a cordgrass sward. It is drained by an intricate system of channels (NFDC7/4, Photos NW-A11 to NW-A14). Along the seaward edge of the saltmarsh, the tides have deposited cockle shells in linear banks, know as cheniers. During my winter site visit, I saw a number of waterfowl on the inter-tidal mud between Hythe and Cadland Creek. These included Oystercatcher, Curlew, and a flock of well over 100 Dunlin.

1.44 The land behind the Hythe to Cadland foreshore is occupied by parts of the Fawley petro-chemical complex. Outfalls from the Esso Oil Refinery discharge into Cadland Creek. Outfalls from premises operated by EniChem, Laporte and Shanks discharge onto the foreshore between Hythe and Cadland Creek (EA/2/1, Figures 4.2 to 4.4 and 4.8 to 4.16).

West of the Dibden Reclaim

1.45 On its south-western side, the Dibden Reclaim is bounded by the curtilage of West Cliff Hall (ES, Figure 3.1, Area 3). West Cliff Hall is a substantial 2-storey Victorian building, which was last used as a hotel but is now derelict. It stands in extensive, overgrown grounds, immediately to the north of West Street and the built-up area of Hythe (CD/ABP/51, Appendix C-5). The northern part of the grounds of West Cliff Hall, which consists of about 3.8ha of open grassland, is proposed as a replacement for the open space on the Hythe Marina Bund in the Exchange Land Certificate (CD/ABP/70).

1.46 To the west, the grounds of West Cliff Hall abut an attractive area of pasture land, characterised by small fields enclosed by hedgerows and mature vegetation. The Fawley Branch Line, a single track railway that links the Fawley Refinery with the London to Weymouth main line at Totton, runs from south-east to north-west through this area. West Cliff Marsh, a small area of unimproved grazing marsh, lies between the railway and the landward edge of the Reclaim (EA/5/1, Map 1 and Photo 6). West Cliff Marsh is a relic of the extensive marshland that characterised Dibden Bay prior to its reclamation. The North Dibden Stream flows from the south-west to pass beneath the Fawley Branch Line at West Cliff Marsh (EA/5/1, Photo 5). Here it turns eastwards to flow along the southern edge of the Reclaim and the southern edge of Hythe Marina Village, before discharging into Southampton Water at Hythe.

1.47 The western part of West Cliff Marsh is included within the area covered by the draft HRO, together with an extensive area of agricultural land at Veal's Farm, further to the west (ES, Figure 3.1, Area 4). This area, which includes one or two small pockets of woodland, lies generally between the railway to the south-west, the Dibden Reclaim to the east and Veal's Lane to the north.

1.48 Veal's Lane provides the main means of vehicular access to the Reclaim. A number of dwellings and a retirement home front this road, which runs westwards from the Reclaim for a distance of about 1km to join Hythe Road. Close to its junction with Hythe Road, Veal's Lane crosses the Fawley Branch Railway Line by means of a level crossing. A public footpath (Footpath No 10) some 2km long, links Veal's Lane and West Street, Hythe (ABP/2/20).

1.49 An extensive woodland (referred to in this report as the Post Copse Complex) lies to the north of Veal's Lane, within the area of the draft HRO. This consists of a mixture of ancient woodland and more recent plantations. It includes Veal's Row, Horseclose Copse, The Plantation and Post Copse (HCC/6/3, Appendix 1a, Plan 9). Two public footpaths run northwards from Veal's Lane (ABP/2/20). The more easterly of these (Footpath No 13) leads to a dead end. At the time of my visit the more westerly footpath (Footpath No 12) was so overgrown as to be impassable. There is a small pond at the western end of Veal's Row (EA/5/1, Photo 1). Between Veal's Row and the Reclaim there is an area of herb-rich grassland, known as Veal's Row Meadows.

1.50 A small watercourse, the Marchwood Stream, flows from west to east through the Post Copse Complex and Veal's Row Meadows. On reaching the edge of the Reclaim (the original shoreline) it divides into two branches. One branch flows southwards along the back edge of the Reclaim, to join the North Dibden Stream at West Cliff Marsh. The other branch skirts the northern edge of the Reclaim before discharging into the River Test (EA/5/1, Map 1 and Photos 2 to 4).

1.51 Further north, and separating the Post Copse Complex from the built up area of Marchwood, there is an area of agricultural land at Pumpfield Farm. This consists of small pastures enclosed by hedgerows, and includes a group of farm buildings. Pumpfield Farm is linked to Hythe Road by a driveway, which crosses the Fawley Branch Line at a user-operated level crossing. The road and rail access to the proposed Terminal would pass through Veal's Row Meadows, the Post Copse Complex and Pumpfield Farm. The proposed "park and ride" would also occupy part of Pumpfield Farm.

1.52 Generally, the land to the west of the Reclaim slopes gently up towards the New Forest (NFDC/7/3, Figure 5). There are panoramic views across the Reclaim from the Dibden Golf Course, which lies approximately 1km to the south-west (CD/ABP/51, Photo P9).

Marchwood

1.53 On its northern side, the Dibden Reclaim is bounded by the Marchwood Military Port, which is operated by the army (ES, Figure 3.1, Area 5). The Military Port has deep-water jetties, which project into the River Test. Ships load and discharge military equipment and supplies here, including explosives. To the south of the main jetties, there is a boat-lift, by means of which landing craft and similar vessels can be removed from the water. The Military Port contains a number of buildings, including residential accommodation for defence personnel. It has a rail link to the Fawley Branch Line.

1.54 The Military Port lies at the south-eastern edge of the built-up area of Marchwood. The waterfront here has a mainly industrial character. It includes the premises of the former Husbands Shipyard, which closed in 1999; and the site of the former Marchwood Power Station, which is now demolished. These adjacent sites have a combined area of over 57ha. There is currently a small aggregates wharf on part of the former Power Station site. Further to the north, a former Royal Navy Armaments Depot at Admiralty Quay has now been redeveloped for residential purposes. The Marchwood Sailing Club have moorings in this area.

1.55 The Fawley Branch Railway Line cuts through the settlement of Marchwood. The proposed noise barriers would be installed on either side of the railway track through the built-up area. For the most part, the adjacent properties consist of 2-storey dwellings, some of which stand within a few metres of the railway (CD/ABP/7 and 8).

1.56 Access across the railway at Marchwood is by means of level crossings at Main Road and Tavell's Lane. While most of the facilities in Marchwood lie to the north-east of the railway, the Marchwood Church of England Infant School lies to the south-west, at the junction of Twiggs Lane and the A326.

1.57 A series of country roads link Marchwood and Hythe. Hythe Road runs in a south- easterly direction from the Main Road level crossing. Shortly after leaving the built-up area of Marchwood, it passes the access to Pumpfield Farm to the north; and the Pilgrim Inn (a public house and restaurant) to the south. East of the Pilgrim Inn, Hythe Road runs alongside (and to the north of) the A326. It continues past the western end of Veal's Lane and through an area of open farmland. An access to the east leads to a substantial residential caravan site. Shortly after this, Hythe Road terminates in a priority junction with Bramshott Hill. This is another country road, which runs eastwards from the Dibden Roundabout on the A326, and leads into Hythe, via Main Road and Southampton Road.

1.58 North of Marchwood, the Fawley Branch Railway Line passes through an area of open countryside. There is a user-operated level crossing at Howell's Lane (a bridleway); and an automatic half-barrier level crossing at Trotts Lane, a country road that carries local traffic between Marchwood and Totton. About 2.5km after leaving the built-up area of Marchwood, the Fawley Branch Line enters the urban area of Totton at Hounsdown.

Totton

1.59 The Hounsdown Secondary School lies immediately to the south of the automatic half-barrier level crossing at Jacob's Gutter Lane. Noise barriers are proposed between this point and the branch line's junction with the main line, save for a short stretch where the railway is in cutting. This section of the branch line passes through residential areas, with housing coming to within a few metres of the track.

1.60 The single-track Fawley Branch Line joins the 2-track Weymouth to London main line on an embankment approximately 1km west of Totton Station. The junction is the site of the TWAO. An open space extends along the south side of this section of the railway. A tree-lined stream, known as Bartley Water, flows eastwards through this open area towards the River Test (CD/ABP/6, Figure 2.2). To the north of the railway there is housing and a sports ground.

1.61 A passing loop, known as the Fawley Goods Loop, has been provided alongside the northernmost section of the Fawley Branch Line. The loop is about 450m long. It can be used to hold trains when the branch line and/or the main line are busy (Fawley Branch Line ES, Figures 3.1(2) and 3.2). It also provides rail access to the Totton Goods Yard.

1.62 The Junction Road level crossing is on the main line, a little to the east of the junction (Fawley Branch Line ES, Figure 9.2(2)). There is a footbridge alongside this full-barrier crossing. The London to Weymouth main line severs the northern and southern parts of Totton. The Junction Road level crossing provides the sole vehicular route across the railway in Totton.

1.63 Totton is at the lowest bridge point on the River Test, and marks the limit of navigation for shipping. The A35, which links Bournemouth with Southampton via Lyndhurst, passes to the south of the town before crossing the River Test at Redbridge.

Southampton

1.64 In front of the Dibden Reclaim, the River Test is between 0.8km and 1.1km wide. The City of Southampton lies on the opposite side of the river. Southampton is the largest city in south-east England outside London. It occupies a nodal point in the national communications network. The M27 motorway skirts the northern edge of the city (ES, Figure 11.1). To the west, the M27 connects with the A36(T), which provides a route to Bristol and South Wales via Salisbury. The western end of the M27 runs into the A31, which provides a route to Bournemouth and Poole, via Ringwood. To the north of Southampton, the M3 motorway leaves the M27, to provide access to London, and to the Midlands via the A34(T). To the east of Southampton, the M27 provides a link to Portsmouth and the A27, which continues eastwards along the south coast.

1.65 Southampton is also well served by rail connections. It is on the main line from London to Weymouth, and has rail access to the Midlands and North via Basingstoke and Reading. There are also rail links from Southampton to Bristol and South Wales via Salisbury; and to Portsmouth and Brighton along the south coast.

1.66 Southampton Water is a tidal estuary, over 10km long and up 2.5km wide. A dredged channel, with a minimum depth of 12.6m, provides a navigable access between the sea and Southampton Docks. These first developed between the Rivers Test and Itchen, and now extend northwards along the east side of the River Test. Parts of the original docks on the Itchen have now been redeveloped as Ocean Village, a mixed use complex which includes housing, retail and entertainment uses, as well as a marina.

1.67 The remainder of the original Eastern Docks continue in use as part of the ABP Port of Southampton (TS/N2, Fig 2). This part of the port includes the Queen Elizabeth 2 Cruise Terminal; and specialised berths for handling grain and "roll-on-roll-off" (ro-ro) cargoes. The Eastern Docks have irregular quay lines and space for cargo handling is limited. Much of the land behind the quays is used for parking trade cars and other ro-ro traffic awaiting shipment or collection. A multi-storey car park has recently been provided on land adjacent to Berth 34, to accommodate trade cars. The Eastern Docks have a rail connection to the Southampton to London main line.

1.68 Town Quay, Royal Pier and Mayflower Park (a public open space) occupy the Southampton waterfront immediately to the north-west of the Eastern Docks. Town Quay is used for ferry services to the Isle of Wight, as well as to Hythe.

1.69 The Western Docks (Berths 101 to 110) have a straight-line quay, which extends north-westwards along the River Test from Mayflower Park for a distance of about 2km. The Western Docks include the Mayflower Cruise Terminal. There are also specialist facilities for handling fresh produce (such as tomatoes and bananas) and ro-ro cargoes. The Rank Flour Mills and the Martini-Bacardi Plant, which are located within the Western Docks, receive materials delivered across the quay. To the north of the Mayflower Cruise Terminal there are berths which specialise in handling bulk cargoes, including fertilisers, gypsum and aggregates. The Western Docks have a rail connection to the main line at Millbrook. The Millbrook Freightliner Terminal lies just outside the ABP estate, adjacent to the main line.

1.70 Parts of the Western Docks are used for activities that have no functional connection with the port. These include a Royal Mail depot, a timber yard and a vehicle components factory. A cable factory, which previously stood in the Western Docks, has recently been demolished, and its site is now used for the storage of empty containers and other port related uses. The King George V Dry Dock is situated at the northern end of the Western Docks.

1.71 Berths 201 to 203 lie to the north of the Western Docks. They were originally built as part of the Southampton Container Terminal, but are now used for ro-ro (trade car) traffic. They have a combined quay length of about 820m.

1.72 The Southampton Container Terminal (SCT) consists of Berths 204 to 207. These berths have a combined quay length of 1,350m. The SCT is at the end of the dredged shipping channel, but offers the greatest depth of water at the quayside in Southampton (at least 15m at Berth 207 at any state of the tide). The SCT's quayside cranes are about 100m tall (with their jibs in the upright position). The containers are generally stacked two high. They are transported about the Terminal by straddle carriers. The Maritime Freightliner Terminal is located immediately behind the SCT, adjacent to the main line railway.

1.73 At night the SCT is brightly lit from fixed columns and from lamps attached to the quayside cranes. In addition, I was conscious of a considerable degree of glare from the working lights on board certain of the container ships at the quayside.

1.74 The Redbridge Vehicle Terminal lies at the north-western end of the existing port, beyond the SCT. This land is used for the storage of trade cars, which are shipped through berths 201 to 203.

The A326

1.75 The A326 runs southwards from Junction 2 on the M27, to provide access to the settlements that line the western side of Southampton Water. These include Totton, Marchwood, Hythe and Fawley, and are known collectively as the Waterside. Generally the A326 runs through open countryside and woodland, by-passing the main built-up areas.

1.76 The most northerly part of the A326 is known as the Totton Western Bypass. Its initial section, between the M27 and the Michigan Way Roundabout, takes the form of a dual carriageway, some 2.5km long (ABP/10/3, Appendix 4). South of Michigan Way, the A326 continues for a further 2.5km or so as a single carriageway. Along this section there are roundabout junctions with Ringwood Road (A336) and Fletchwood Road.

1.77 Further to the south Monkton Lane joins the main road from the east at a priority junction. The A326 then bridges Bartley Water and passes over the London to Weymouth railway line at Ashurst Bridge, before reaching the Foxhills Roundabout.

1.78 The remaining section of the Totton Western Bypass consists of a dual carriageway, some 2km long. This passes beneath the A35 at a grade-separated junction with restricted access.

1.79 The Totton Western Bypass ends at the Hounsdown Fork, where the southbound carriageway merges with the Marchwood Bypass. The latter road begins at a roundabout junction on the A35 at Rushington, from where it runs southwards as a single carriageway. A staggered junction links it to Jacob's Gutter Lane after which it passes under the Fawley Branch Line. After the access to the Hounsdown Business Park it becomes one-way, southbound, until it merges with the southbound carriageway of the Totton Western Bypass.

1.80 South of the Hounsdown Fork, the A326 continues as a single carriageway. There are staggered junctions at the intersections with Staplewood Lane and Twiggs Lane. These roads run east into Marchwood and west into the countryside. About 3km south of the Hounsdown Fork, the A326 passes the Pilgrim Inn and runs alongside Hythe Road. The proposed junction with the Dibden Terminal Access Road would be a little to the south-east of the Pilgrim Inn. The Marchwood Bypass terminates at the Dibden Roundabout, from where Bramshott Hill leads eastwards towards Hythe, and the A326 continues southwards towards Hardley, Holbury and Fawley.

The Wider Area

1.81 Balloons flown on the line of the main quay of the proposed Dibden Terminal to simulate the height of the proposed quayside cranes were visible across a wide area. They could be seen from Bolton's Bench at Lyndhurst, some 10km to the west. They were more readily apparent from Yew Tree Heath in the New Forest, across a distance of about 5km. And they were conspicuous from points in the Hythe and Marchwood area, including the Dibden Golf Course and parts of the built-up areas.

1.82 The balloons were also clearly visible from Mayflower Park, the City Walls and parts of the West Quay Shopping Centre in Southampton; from the Itchen Bridge; and from residential areas in Weston. They were also apparent in long views from Southampton Water and the River Test.

1.83 The existing quay cranes in the SCT can be seen on the skyline from Pepperbox Hill, near Whiteparish, Wiltshire, across a distance of some 23km.

1.84 At night there is a significant sky glow over Southampton when seen from relatively dark areas within the New Forest. The glow is particularly intense in the vicinity of the Southampton Container Terminal. There is also a marked skyglow above the refinery and industrial installations at Fawley.

The Case for Associated British Ports (ABP)

The Proposals

Content of the HRO

1.85 The proposed Harbour Revision Order (HRO) would empower ABP to develop a new deep-water container terminal at Dibden Bay. An illustrative layout for the Dibden Terminal is contained in the Environmental Statement (ES, Fig 4.2). Part II of the draft HRO makes specific provision for the following works:

the construction of a new quay (Work No 1);

the dredging of an area between the quay and the main shipping channel in the River Test and Southampton Water (Work No 2);

the preparation of an area of about 202ha behind the quay to provide a base for port facilities (Work No 3);

the provision of a port access road to link the proposed Terminal with the A326 (Work No 4);

the diversion of Hythe Road so as to accommodate the port access road (Work No 4A);

the provision of a "park and ride" car park on land at Pumpfield Farm (Work No 4B);

the provision of an emergency access route between the proposed Terminal and Hythe Road, via Veal's Lane (Work No 4C);

the provision of rail access between the proposed Terminal and the Fawley Branch Line, and sidings within Work No 3 (Work No 5);

the excavation of a tidal creek (to be known as Dibden Creek) and the creation of a seasonal wetland and other habitats (to be known as the Church Farm Nature Conservation Area) on land generally to the west and south of the proposed Terminal (Work No 6);

the recharge, enhancement and extension of the inter-tidal mudflat between Hythe and Cadland Creek by the deposit of dredged sediment (Work No 7);

the reconstruction and raising of the Hythe Marina Bund and the reconfiguration of the Hythe Marina Boatyard (Work No 8).

1.86 In addition, Part II of the HRO includes provision for extensive landscaping works in the areas shown in the Order Plans (CD/ABP/2). It also contains proposals for the creation, diversion and stopping up of public rights of way. These are detailed in Schedule 1 to the HRO.

1.87 Part III of the HRO provides for the compulsory acquisition by ABP of land required for the purpose of carrying out the proposed works. Details are contained in Schedule 2 of the Order.

1.88 Part IV of the HRO covers miscellaneous matters, including provisions for the protection of Railtrack, the Environment Agency and the highway authority; and provisions relating to the replacement of public open space.

1.89 Development authorised by the HRO would constitute permitted development in accordance with Article 3 and Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO). Schedule 3 to the HRO contains a number of restrictions which would help tie the form of the authorised development to that described in the Environmental Statement.

1.90 The Secretary of State is now requested to make various modifications to the draft HRO. These are highlighted in a "filled-up" version of the draft Order (CD/ABP/121). In many cases, they correct minor errors or are otherwise uncontentious. For instance, a number of modifications proposed in Articles 28A and 29 of the filled-up HRO reflect the outcome of consultations with Railtrack, who have now withdrawn their objections to the Dibden Terminal scheme. Similarly, the proposed modifications to Article 30 of the draft HRO (and the proposed introduction of Schedule 4) reflect agreements made with the Environment Agency about provisions for their protection. The proposed modifications to the draft HRO by the introduction of Article 32A and Schedule 5 reflect the requirements of certain statutory undertakers. Other modifications relating to more contentious matters are described more fully below.

1.91 ABP also propose modifications to the Order Plans. These are summarised in CD/ABP/122.

1.92 In addition to the limitations proposed in the filled-up Order, the form of the proposed development would also be regulated through planning obligations contained in a legal agreement and unilateral undertaking made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (ABP/0/149).

Terminal Layout

1.93 The Terminal proposals are described in Chapter 4 of the Environmental Statement, and in the supporting Technical Statement TS/P1.

The Quay

1.94 The proposed deep-water quay would be built in a straight line, about 1,850m long. It would provide berths for 6 large container ships. The quay would project between about 80m and 200m from the existing shoreline. The whole of the main quay wall would be within the existing tidal area.

1.95 A multi-purpose return berth, some 240m in length, would extend between the northern end of the deep-water quay and the shore. This berth would be used by smaller feeder and "roll-on roll-off" (ro-ro) vessels, and would be equipped to handle aggregates.

1.96 Immediately in front of the deep-water quay, a berthing pocket would be dredged to a depth of -16.5m CD. The return berth would have a dredged depth of -13m CD. A new approach channel would link the Dibden Terminal to the main shipping channel in Southampton Water. Like the main shipping channel, this would be dredged to a depth of -12.6m CD.

1.97 The deep-water quay would be able to accommodate the biggest container ships currently in use. Until recently, the dimensions of the Panama Canal constrained the size of these vessels to the so-called "Panamax" limit. However, this limit has now been breached. The largest "Post Panamax" ships carry payloads of up to 7,000 TEU, are over 300m long and draw up to 14.5m. The Dibden Terminal would also be able to accommodate the next generation of "Ultra Large Container Ships" (ULCS) the size of which is expected to be limited by the dimensions of the Suez Canal. Such a ship might carry up to 12,500 TEU, with a length overall of about 380m, a beam of some 60m and a draught of up to about 14.7m.

1.98 Immediately behind the quay wall there would be a ship to shore transfer zone, with an operational width of some 135m (TS/P1, Fig 3). Within this zone, up to 20 rail-mounted cranes would be installed at the quayside. They would be capable of reaching across ships carrying 22 rows of containers. The expected maximum height of the quayside cranes (when upright and not in use) would be 109m above the quay apron. When in operation, with their jibs in a horizontal position, the cranes would have a height of 71m above the quay apron. Two smaller, rail-mounted quay cranes, with the capability of reaching over 18 containers across the deck of a ship, would serve the multi-purpose return berth.

Containers, Ro-ro Units and Aggregates

1.99 A container stacking yard, measuring about 63ha, would be located at the rear of the quayside transfer area. Containers awaiting shipment or collection would be stored here in stacks up to 3 boxes high. The maximum height of the container stack would be 8.8m above ground level. The stacks would be orientated at 90o to the line of the deep-water quay. The yard would probably be served by rail-mounted gantry cranes, although the use of rubber-tyred gantries would be a possible alternative. The Dibden Terminal would have capacity for an estimated annual throughput of about 1,384,000 containers (as measured in terms of the number of box movements across the quay).

1.100 Lorries would be loaded and unloaded in a road transfer area along the western side of the container stacking yard. Within the Terminal there would be a one-way circulatory road system. Tractor-trailer units would be used to transport containers from one part of the Terminal to another.

1.101 A 16-track railway yard is proposed in the western part of the Terminal site. This would consist of four sets of 4-track sidings. Each siding would have a useable length of at least 785m. Boxes would be lifted to and from rail wagons by rail-mounted gantry cranes.

1.102 Parking areas for ro-ro vehicles would be located at either end of the container stack. On completion of the Terminal, these would have a combined area of not more than 10.9ha. The more northerly parking area would be close to the return berth. The Terminal would have the capacity to handle about 150,000 ro-ro units annually.

1.103 An aggregates storage area of about 7.5ha would be located towards the northern end of the Terminal. The aggregates would probably be transferred from the return berth to this area by means of an elevated conveyor, and would then be held in stockpiles up to 13m high. The aggregates storage area would be served by both road and rail. Material would be loaded onto lorries and rail wagons by face shovels. The Terminal would be able to handle approximately 1.5 million tonnes of aggregate each year.

Gate Area, Administration, Maintenance and Support Services

1.104 The main gate area for the proposed Terminal would be located on a direct route between the proposed port access road and the container stacking yard. There would be 15 gates providing the capacity to process up to 120 heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) an hour. Parking space for about 100 HGVs would be provided at the landward side of the gate. This would accommodate lorries queuing to gain access to the Terminal at peak periods or waiting during a port closure. A separate emergency lorry park would be located between the gate area and the aggregate storage area. This would provide emergency accommodation for up to 8 hours' flow of incoming HGVs at the peak (daytime) rate.

1.105 Administrative buildings would be located adjacent to the gate area. These would include canteen facilities and changing rooms; and accommodation for shipping agents, courier companies and the like. A car park would be provided adjacent to the administrative buildings.

1.106 Maintenance and support services would be located between the road transfer area and the railway yard. These would include workshops for servicing and repairing cranes, port transfer vehicles, refrigerated containers and other equipment. There would also be facilities for the storage of containers that are not of a standard size or are damaged or leaking; and for the fumigation of containers. In addition there would be inspection sheds for H M Customs and the Port Health Authority; and a parking area for port transfer vehicles. Most of the buildings to be provided within this area would be of normal industrial height.

1.107 The HRO makes provision for the erection of an equipment maintenance building, approximately 22m high , towards the northern end of the Terminal. This would be restricted to the location shown (CD/ABP/2, Sheet 16).

Groupage and Ancillary Services

1.108 A groupage depot would be provided within the proposed Terminal. This would contain warehouse buildings, some 13m in height, surrounded by hard standings.

1.109 Empty containers would be stored in two separate areas. The larger of these would be at the northern edge of the Terminal, between the aggregate storage area and the Marchwood Military Port. Here the empty boxes would be stacked up to 7 high (20.3m above ground level) but would be stepped down for safety reasons. The second area for the long term storage of empty containers would be immediately to the west of the railway yard, where the boxes would be stacked up to 4 high (11.6m above ground level).

1.110 Road haulage yards would be provided close to the eastern end of the Terminal access road. An additional area for other ancillary services would be provided at the western edge of the Terminal. This would include facilities for container repair; tank cleaning; a fuelling station; and electrical sub-stations.

Terminal Lighting and Landscaping

1.111 The Terminal would be lit to the legally required levels at all times. This would include mobile lighting on the cranes, gantries and vessels; and fixed lighting in operational areas and parking areas, and along internal access routes. The working lights on the booms of the quayside cranes would be about 40m above ground level. Fixed lights on the quayside and in the transfer area would be mounted on columns with a maximum height of 30m above ground level. There would be 20m high lighting columns in the ro-ro and storage areas; 15m columns in the railway yard; and 10m columns along the site roads. In all instances high-pressure sodium directional cut-off lamps would be used.

1.112 The lighting arrangements for the Terminal are the subject of a Section 106 Agreement (ABP/0/149, Part 3). Among other things, this requires details of the proposed lighting to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority before any part of the Terminal is brought into use. It stipulates that the lighting scheme must conform substantially with the arrangements described in the Environmental Statement and Technical Statement TS/LV5.

1.113 A separate legal agreement between ABP, the New Forest District Council and the Hythe Marina Parties places further restrictions on the proposed quayside lighting (ABP/0/128). It includes provision for 80o louvres to be attached to luminaires at or above 25m AOD within a defined area corresponding to the two most southerly of the proposed berths. This would shield residents of Hythe Marina Village from a direct view of the luminous areas of the lights in question.

1.114 The on-site landscaping proposals would include broad belts of woodland along the northern Terminal boundary; around the emergency lorry park; and within the support and ancillary services areas. Tree and shrub planting of a more formal character would be undertaken around buildings and along roads and fence lines. A wooded bund, up to 12m high and 50m wide, would mark the rear boundary of the Terminal, providing a significant screen in views from the west and south. The proposed planting would reflect the existing vegetation outside the development.

1.115 The proposed landscaping works are the subject of a planning obligation contained in the Section 106 Agreement (ABP/0/149, Part 2). This obligation applies to proposed landscaping both within and outside the operational area of the Terminal. It stipulates that neither the proposed Terminal development nor the proposed highway improvements can begin until a Landscape Strategy Document has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. This document must identify in greater detail the matters contained in the Landscape Framework Document, which is included in Schedule 1 to the Section 106 Agreement. The obligation also makes provision for the execution and maintenance of the landscaping proposals specified in the Landscape Strategy Document.

HRO Proposals Outside the Terminal Area

Road and Rail Connections

1.116 A twin-track railway spur would connect the Terminal's railway yard and aggregate siding to the existing Fawley Branch Line. A new junction would be formed on the branch line, a little to the south of the Pumpfield Farm level crossing (TS/P2, Figs 6 and 7).

1.117 A 10m wide, single-carriageway road would provide access to the proposed Terminal from the A326. This would begin at a signalised junction, a little to the south-east of the Pilgrim Inn (TS/P3, Figs 2 and 3). The proposed port access road would pass beneath Hythe Road (which would be diverted at this point). It would also pass beneath the existing Fawley Branch Line; and beneath the proposed railway spur. At its eastern end it would terminate at a roundabout. The port access road would be lit from 8m high columns.

1.118 An emergency access route would be provided between the Terminal and Hythe Road, via Veal's Lane. This would also provide an access to the Terminal for pedestrians and cyclists.

Park and Ride

1.119 The Environmental Statement refers to a proposed public ferry service running between the Dibden Terminal and Town Quay, Southampton. A dedicated shuttle bus service was to have provided a link between the ferry and a proposed public car park, located on land immediately to the east of Pumpfield Farm. However, in the light of objections, the proposal for this ferry service has now been abandoned. Nevertheless, it is intended that "work boats" would ferry port employees between the Dibden Terminal and the existing Port of Southampton. Work buses would transfer employees from the landing stage to their workplaces.

1.120 A "park and ride" facility using buses is now proposed. The "park and ride" would occupy some 3.5ha of land immediately to the east of Pumpfield Farm. (ABP seek the modification of the draft HRO to correct the reference to Work No 4B comprising an area of 35ha). The "park and ride" would contain up to 500 surfaced parking spaces, together with a bus set-down point and associated buildings. It would be reached via the port access road. Lighting columns would be 5m high within the "park and ride" site and 6m high at the site entrance. Improved local bus services would run into the "park and ride" from the A326. Work buses would transfer employees between the bus set-down point in the "park and ride" and their workplaces inside the Terminal.

1.121 Part 6 of the Section 106 Agreement (ABP/0/149) includes provisions relating to the construction and management of the proposed "park and ride". It also makes provision for ABP to make a financial contribution of 660,000 to the County Council if authorisation is not given for the "park and ride"; or if the County Council determine that the "park and ride" is not required. This financial contribution is to be applied to appropriate public transport infrastructure or services within Totton and the Waterside area.

1.122 Should authorisation not be given for the "park and ride", ABP propose that a bus transfer area should be provided (ABP/0/127). This would occupy some 0.99ha within the area currently identified for the "park and ride". It would include a turning circle and lay-by for buses; and waiting and drop-off facilities for car users.

Pedestrian and Cycle Routes

1.123 New paths and cycleways are proposed to provide routes linking the Terminal with Hythe and Marchwood. These would allow employees to cycle or walk to work without using the port access road. Outside the Terminal, the new paths and cycleways would form part of the network of public rights of way.

1.124 From Marchwood, pedestrians and cyclists would follow the diverted route of Hythe Road, continue along Veal's Lane, and enter the Terminal via the emergency access. From Hythe, a footpath/cycleway would run from West Street, past West Cliff Hall, to Veal's Lane. It would incorporate parts of the existing Hythe and Dibden Footpath No 10 (ABP/2/20). That footpath would be diverted to avoid sensitive habitats within the proposed Church Farm Nature Conservation Area. The realigned route (which would be followed by the proposed footpath/cycleway) would run immediately to the north of the Fawley Branch Line.

1.125 Marchwood Footpaths No 12 and 13 are each proposed to be closed at the points where they would be severed by the port access corridor. However, a new footpath would provide a public right of way between the truncated ends of these paths, to form a circular walk through the Post Copse Complex. The circular route would start and finish in Veal's Lane (ABP/2/21). A proposed modification to Article 15 of the draft HRO makes express provision for this facility (CD/ABP/121).

1.126 A new footpath/cycleway would run alongside the Terminal Access Road between Hythe Road and the proposed "park and ride" site, from where it would continue to join the existing Marchwood Footpath 11a. Fresh thought has been given to the precise alignment of this route, and this is reflected in further proposed modifications to Article 15 of the draft HRO.

Recharge of the Foreshore between Hythe and Cadland

1.127 The foreshore between Hythe and Cadland Creek would be recharged, using fine-grained sediments dredged from the inter-tidal area in front of the proposed Terminal quay (ES, Fig 4.1). The recharge material would be placed on the foreshore in stages and retained by a system of temporary barriers. The barriers would be removed when the recharge material has become sufficiently consolidated. The recharge scheme would improve the sediment quality of an area of contaminated foreshore, and would extend the inter-tidal mudflat by up to 22ha (to mean low water) thereby increasing the feeding resource available to waterfowl. It would provide a beneficial use for dredgings, and would retain sediment within the estuary. It would also protect the existing saltmarsh from wave action. By these means it would help reduce erosion.

Dibden Creek

1.128 Dibden Creek would be constructed around the southern and western edges of the Terminal. It would be some 1,500m long and up to about 300m wide. The creek would constitute a new landscape feature, re-establishing part of the original shoreline of Southampton Water. It would provide new nature conservation habitats, including over 30ha of inter-tidal mudflats. Within the creek, shingle islands and other structures would provide roosting and breeding areas for waders. Areas of saltmarsh would be expected to develop in the elbow of the creek and at its head.

1.129 A sill (Sill No 1) would be constructed at an elevation of 2.6m AOD to provide a barrier between the tidal creek and the freshwater drainage system. However, this would be overtopped on extreme high tides, so as to provide an occasional saline input to the adjacent wet grassland.

1.130 Immediately below Sill No 1 a wide, raised "flood channel" would be formed at the head of the creek. This would be regularly inundated with sea water. Shallow scrapes or pans would be provided to support a complex of brackish and reedy pools amid the saltmarsh.

1.131 The Marchwood Stream would be diverted to flow into the creek at Sill No 1. A second sill would be constructed across the Marchwood Stream, at an elevation of 3.05m AOD. This would provide for the landward movement of the creek in response to future sea level rise (ABP/0/66D, Map 3). A sluice gate would be provided on the Marchwood Stream at an elevation of 3.7m. This would permanently protect the housing in Veal's Lane from tidal flooding.

Church Farm Nature Conservation Area and Off-Site Landscaping

1.132 The Church Farm Nature Conservation Area would consist of about 136ha of wetlands, drier grasslands and woodland, adjoining Dibden Creek (ABP/0/66D). It would complement the creek in providing a transition from the estuary, through brackish and freshwater habitats, to dry grassland and woodland. It would be subject to a farming regime appropriate to nature conservation. The physical works would include ground shaping, which would be undertaken at the same time as the creek was excavated.

1.133 West Cliff Marsh would be retained as a grazing marsh within the Church Farm Nature Conservation Area. The bund that currently separates the marsh from the Dibden Reclaim would in future isolate it from Dibden Creek. However, a sluice could be provided to permit the occasional inundation of the marsh with salt water. This might become necessary if the marsh were to lose salinity, to the detriment of its plant community.

1.134 Ephemeral saline pools would be provided in 4 pans, excavated to varying depths, in a triangular area between the proposed creek and the Fawley Branch Line (ABP/0/66D, Map 11). These would replace the ephemeral pools on the landward edge of the Reclaim, which support some notable plant species. The new pans would be separated from the tidal creek by the existing Reclaim Bund. However, sluices would be provided to permit the inundation of the pans with salt water, as and when required, to maintain an appropriate level of salinity.

1.135 Some 13.5ha of low-lying, wet grassland would be provided above Sill No 1 (ABP/0/66D, Maps 3 and 4). This area would be grazed to provide a suitable habitat for feeding widgeon and other wildfowl in winter, and breeding waders and other birds in spring. The Marchwood Stream would flow through the centre of the wet meadows, irrigating a series of open feeder ditches and pools. It would be supplemented with water from a new pond in the north-eastern corner of the Church Farm Nature Conservation Area. This would be used for the storage of rainwater from the roofs of buildings within the Dibden Terminal. Reedbeds would form along the northern edge of the new pond.

1.136 At the southern end of the wet grassland area, an existing reedy pool would be extended to provide a shallow freshwater lagoon. This would include reedbeds. It would become increasingly brackish, since the bund separating it from the creek would be overtopped with increasing frequency due to sea level rise.

1.137 A series of drier fields between the wet grassland and the railway would be managed predominantly for nature conservation. They would provide a suitable breeding habitat for waders and skylarks. At least one field would be left un-grazed during the summer, so as to provide a habitat for invertebrates.

1.138 That part of the proposed Church Farm Nature Conservation Area lying to the south-west of the Fawley Branch Line is botanically poor. Its main use would be as pasture, to supplement the grazing areas to the north-east of the railway.

1.139 Woodlands within the Church Farm Nature Conservation Area would be maintained and enhanced through traditional woodland management. New woodland planting would be undertaken to the north of the existing Post Copse Complex, on either side of the Terminal access corridor. The woodland would surround the proposed "park and ride" car park, and would extend northwards as far as the boundary of the Marchwood Military Port. There would also be new woodland planting between the Fawley Branch Line and the A326, on either side of the diverted Hythe Road. Additional off-site landscaping is proposed on sites at Veal's Farm, Church Farm, Bramshott Hill and Southampton Road (ES, Figure 15.3). Vegetation of nature conservation interest would be taken from areas to be developed, for translocation within the Church Farm Nature Conservation Area (ABP/0/66D, Map 9).

Development and Management of the Nature Conservation Area

1.140 ABP now seek the modification of the draft HRO by the insertion of a new Article 32B (CD/ABP/121). This would preclude work on the construction of the Terminal until such time as the Secretary of State has approved a plan for the development and management of the Church Farm Nature Conservation Area. The principal environmental aims of such a plan are specified and prioritised. They would include the provision of a greater diversity of coastal habitat than currently exists; and the creation of new habitats to offset the losses that would result from the construction of the Terminal. Among other things, the plan would include provision for:

the timing of implementation;

the monitoring of ecological results;

remedial action as necessary;

the periodic review of the proposed works and management arrangements;

liaison with relevant nature conservation bodies; and

funding by ABP for a period of 40 years.

The Hythe Marina Bund

1.141 As originally submitted to the Secretary of State, the draft HRO provides for the reconstruction and enlargement of the Hythe Marina Bund. It was intended that the enlarged structure would rise to a maximum height of about 14m AOD and be topped by a 2m high acoustic fence, so as to provide a more effective screen to shield Hythe Marina Village from the noise and visual impact of the proposed Terminal.

1.142 However, in the light of objections, ABP now seek a modification to their original scheme for the Hythe Marina Bund. This is the subject of a supplementary Environmental Statement (CD/ABP/114). In the Revised Bund Scheme, a large part of the existing Hythe Marina Bund, extending some 80m northwards from Endeavour Way, would remain undisturbed. A new bund would be constructed to the north of this "80m line". The new bund would occupy a strip of land some 60-70m wide. This land would include a small part of the footprint of the existing Hythe Marina Bund; and a larger area that is shown as forming part of the proposed Dibden Creek in the draft HRO as submitted to the Secretary of State.

1.143 In the revised scheme, the new bund would rise to a height of 15m AOD, and would be surmounted by a 2m high acoustic fence. Landscaping would help screen the fence and add to the effective height of the bund. Permissive footpaths would lead to two viewing areas on the crest of the bund, from which it would be possible to look out over the proposed inter-tidal creek and the Dibden Terminal.

1.144 At its eastern and western ends, the bund's crest would drop to a height of 3-4m AOD. On the Marina side, the bund would generally have a gradient of about 1 in 3.5, although this would steepen to 1 in 2 at the back of the boatyard. It would also be necessary to construct a 2m high retaining wall along the northern side of the boatyard. This would entail the permanent loss of a small part of the existing yard. However, a replacement area would be provided by squaring off the boatyard's north-eastern corner, so that there would be no permanent reduction in the size of this facility.

1.145 These revised proposals for the Hythe Marina Bund have consequential effects for the design of the proposed inter-tidal creek and the southern part of the proposed Dibden Terminal. In order to maintain the width of the mouth of the proposed creek, it is now proposed that the south-eastern corner of the Terminal should be constructed in the form of a suspended deck. This would allow the creek to flow beneath part of the Terminal's operational area. The proposed suspended deck would cover an area of about 6,100m2, and would extend along the proposed quay for a distance of about 65m.

1.146 The filled-up Order contains proposed modifications to Article 3 of the HRO, which make provision for the Revised Bund Scheme (CD/ABP/121). That scheme is also the subject of a legal agreement between ABP, the local planning authority and various parties who have an interest in Hythe Marina and Hythe Marina Village (ABP/0/128).

West Cliff Hall

1.147 In the scheme as originally submitted to the Secretary of State, an area of about 3.9ha within the grounds of West Cliff Hall would be given over to public open space, in exchange for the existing area of open space at the Hythe Marina Bund. However, implementation of the Revised Bund Scheme would obviate the need for ABP to acquire any part of the existing open space. As a result, the exchange open space would no longer be required. In view of this, ABP now propose that the draft HRO be modified by the deletion of Article 32.

1.148 However, it remains possible for the Secretary of State to proceed on the basis of proposals for Hythe Marina Bund as originally submitted to him in the draft HRO. In that event, a planning obligation contained in the Section 106 Agreement would become effective (ABP/0/149, Part 7). Among other things, this makes provision for the layout of West Cliff Hall and the Hythe Marina Bund, including arrangements for public access.

Restrictions

1.149 Article 3(5)(a) of the draft HRO would preclude work being undertaken on the construction of Work No 1 (the proposed quay) and Work No 2 (the dredged area) before work commences on other specified features. The specified features are Work No 6 (the formation of Dibden Creek); Work No 7 (the recharge of the mudflats between Hythe and Cadland Creek); and Work No 8 (the enlargement of the Hythe Marina Bund). However, the reference to Work No 7 is qualified by the phrase "or such other mitigation works as may be agreed with the Secretary of State in substitution for Work No 7". This phrase implies that the development could proceed on the basis of some unspecified, alternative mitigation measures, which have not previously been subject to environmental assessment as required by the Harbours Act 1964, or to appropriate assessment as required by the Habitats Regulations 1994. Such an implication would be incorrect and accordingly ABP now seek the deletion of the phrase in question from the HRO.

1.150 Article 3(5)(b) of the draft HRO requires that, once started, Works Nos 6, 7 and 8 should be completed as soon as reasonably practicable. ABP now seek a modification to this Article in recognition of the fact that Work No 7 would require, and be bound by the terms of, a licence under Part II of the Food and Environmental Protection Act 1985.

1.151 Part I of Schedule 3 of the draft HRO includes a number of restrictions designed to limit the environmental impact of the proposed development. These limit the permitted development rights that would otherwise be available under Article 3 and Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO.

1.152 In particular, limits are placed on the permitted height of buildings, plant and machinery (other than ship-to-shore cranes and lighting columns) in various parts of the Terminal area, in accordance with the Planning Restrictions Plan (CD/ABP/2, Sheet 16). For the purposes of this restriction, "buildings" include stacks of goods, materials or containers. The height restrictions vary between 20.7m and 30.6m AOD.

1.153 The storage of aggregates would be restricted to a specified area at the northern end of the proposed Terminal, as shown in the Planning Restrictions Plan. In addition, there would be a restriction on any lighting columns being placed within 25m of the landward boundary of the Terminal area.

Proposed Modifications to Part I of Schedule 3 of the Draft HRO

1.154 ABP now request that Schedule 3 of the draft HRO should be modified as shown in the filled-up Order (CD/ABP/121). A number of the further restrictions set out in that document are designed to ensure that the proposed development would correspond with the scheme as assessed in the Environmental Statement. In particular, a new paragraph 1(1)(b) would limit the proposed development to the handling of containers, aggregates and ro-ro traffic. The area to be used for ro-ro traffic would normally be limited to 10.9ha. However, a new paragraph 1(3) would make provision for this limit to be exceeded, on a temporary basis, during the construction of the Terminal.

1.155 The introduction of paragraph 1(4) would make it explicit that the use of the Terminal for purposes other than the handling of containers, aggregates and ro-ro traffic would require planning permission, if it were likely to have a significant effect on the environment. However an exception is proposed for "occasional or incidental" uses. This would be necessary, for example, to allow ships carrying both containers and general cargo to unload non-containerised items at the Terminal.

1.156 A new paragraph 1A would require the local planning authority to have regard to the principles of the design strategy set out in the Environmental Statement when exercising any right of prior approval pursuant to Condition A1 in Part 11 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO. Paragraph 1B would extend this right to include prior approval of the external appearance of the proposed ship-to-shore cranes. A new paragraph 3A would limit the height of the ship-to-shore cranes to 120m AOD.

1.157 Subject to certain specified exceptions, cranes used for the construction of the Terminal would be limited to a maximum height of 40m above ground level, by virtue of the introduction of paragraph 7A. A new paragraph 7B would restrict the use of the Terminal prior to the provision of rail sidings and a connection to the Fawley Branch Line. New paragraphs 7C to 7U inclusive would introduce conditions to regulate operational noise, construction noise and vibration.

Disapplication of Regulation 60 of the Habitats Regulations 1994

1.158 Regulation 60 of the Habitats Regulations 1994 would impose a requirement on ABP to obtain the written approval of the District Council (in accordance with Regulation 62) before the proposed development could begin. The purpose of Regulations 60 and 62 is to control development for which planning permission has been granted by a general development order, but which would be likely to have a significant effect on a European site. Their effect is to prevent such development from proceeding in the absence of an appropriate assessment made in accordance with Regulation 48 of the Habitats Regulations.

1.159 In the present case, Regulation 60 is wholly redundant, since the Secretary of State would have to make an appropriate assessment before making the HRO. Regulation 60 would add a repetitive and unnecessary layer to the decision making process.

1.160 It would also have the consequence that, if the result of the appropriate assessment were negative, the development could not be approved. This is because, unlike Regulations 48 and 49, Regulation 62 contains no derogation for development that must be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

1.161 In order to overcome these problems, Part II of Schedule 3 to the draft HRO provides for Regulation 60 to be disapplied. However, in the light of concerns expressed by some objectors, ABP now request a modification, whereby Regulation 60 would continue to apply to any development authorised by the HRO which:

has not been the subject of an appropriate assessment under Regulation 48 in connection with the making of the HRO; and

is not subject to any further consent, permission or authorisation by a "competent authority", within the meaning of the Habitats Regulations.

Compulsory Purchase Provisions of the HRO

Compulsory Purchase of the Hythe to Cadland Foreshore

1.162 Article 18 and Schedule 2 of the draft HRO make provision for the compulsory acquisition of land identified on the Order Plans. This includes some 13.7ha of land on the foreshore immediately to the south of Hythe, which is owned by the New Forest District Council and operated as a nature reserve by the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (CD/ABP/2, Sheet 13, Parcel 15). In the light of the objections made, ABP now propose that the whole of this land should be excluded from the proposed compulsory purchase powers. The requisite modification to the draft HRO is included in the filled-up Order (CD/ABP/121). The land would remain within the limits of deviation for the proposed recharge, but recharge works would only be undertaken there by agreement with its proprietors. If these works did not proceed, the area of the proposed recharge would be reduced by about 3ha.

1.163 In addition, the draft HRO provides for the compulsory purchase of some 205ha of inter-tidal land, consisting of mudflats and saltmarsh, between Hythe and Cadland Creek (Parcel 14). This land is owned by Esso Petroleum Ltd, who object to the relevant provision. It is now clear that access to the saltmarsh would not be required in order to carry out the proposed recharge of the mudflat. Accordingly, ABP now propose that the compulsory purchase powers should be deleted from the HRO, in so far as they would affect the saltmarsh area within Parcel 14. The revised extent of Parcel 14, and the limit of construction activity for Work No 7 as now proposed, are shown in CD/ABP/98. ABP request that the draft HRO be modified to reflect these proposals.

1.164 Esso have sustained their objection to the compulsory purchase of their land. They say that, as they are willing to sell the land by negotiation, compulsory acquisition is unnecessary. However, negotiations between Esso and ABP with regard to this matter have not reached a successful conclusion.

1.165 Esso also argue that if ABP acquire the mudflats, they should also acquire the adjacent saltmarsh as originally proposed. However, ABP have given Esso an undertaking that they would do so (EP/3/1, Appendix 1). In the circumstances, there is no basis for the rejection of the compulsory purchase powers sought by ABP, which are necessary to allow the recharge scheme to proceed.

1.166 The owners of various outfalls that cross Parcel 14 have expressed concern about the compulsory acquisition of this land. In view of this, ABP seek the modification of Article 18 of the draft HRO to indicate that the powers conferred by the Order would not authorise the compulsory acquisition of any existing pipes or other apparatus within Parcel 14, or the extinguishment of any rights in connection therewith.

Compulsory Purchase of the Hythe Marina Bund

1.167 The draft HRO also provides for the compulsory acquisition of the Hythe Marina Bund and Boatyard (Parcel 1). This would be necessary in order to carry out the reconstruction of the Bund as originally proposed.

1.168 However, the compulsory acquisition of the whole of Parcel 1 would not be required to complete the Revised Bund Scheme as now proposed by ABP (see para 3.58 above). A legally binding agreement between ABP and the landowners makes provision for ABP to lease most of the land that they would need to complete that scheme (ABP/0/128). The sole exception is an area of some 56m2, which is currently occupied by a telecommunications mast and compound, and is sub-let to National Transcommunications Ltd (NTL). ABP now seek the modification of Schedule 2 of the draft HRO and Sheet 7 of the Order Plans to the effect that Parcel 1 would cover only the NTL compound. Since the NTL compound is not an area of public open space, there would be no requirement for exchange land to be provided; and no requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the Exchange Land Certificate.

Other Areas

1.169 The draft HRO makes provision for the compulsory acquisition of land that is already owned by ABP. The purpose of this is to enable ABP to extinguish any rights that other parties may have over the land in question.

Terminal Construction

Mobilisation

1.170 The Environmental Statement indicates that the Terminal would be constructed in three phases (ES, Figure 9.1) probably over a period of about 9 years (TS/C2, Appendix I). Development would begin with mobilisation works, which would include the construction of an access jetty and a temporary access road.

1.171 The jetty would provide the primary means of access for bulk materials during Phase 1. It would be located to the south of the Phase 1 quay wall. The approach to the jetty and the jetty berths would be dredged to a maximum of -10m CD. It is proposed that the jetty would consist of rows of tubular piles supporting a concrete deck. At the end of Phase 1, the jetty would be relocated at the southern end of the Phase 2 quay wall. It would remain there for the rest of the construction period.

1.172 A 7m wide temporary access road would run from the A326 into the Terminal site (TS/C3, Appendix V, Stage 1). A left-in/left-out system would be used to minimise disruption to traffic on the main road. The temporary access road would cross Hythe Road (which would be subject to a temporary diversion) at a signalised crossing. It would cross the Fawley Branch Railway at the Pumpfield Farm level crossing, which would be manned during working hours. On completion of the permanent Terminal access road, use of this temporary construction access would cease.

1.173 Haul roads would be established within the Terminal site. Where possible, these would utilise the gravel containment bunds that were constructed during the initial reclamation works. The construction of new haul roads would be likely to entail the placement of compacted gravel on a "geogrid" reinforcement mat laid on the original ground surface.

Quay Wall Construction

1.174 The quay wall would be an embedded structure with a continuous steel pile face. Various forms of construction would be possible, and the detailed design remains to be decided. It is intended that the construction contract would be let on a design and build basis. The principal components of the structure would include a quay face of driven piles and a piled anchor system. These would be held to one another by steel tie rods. Granular fill would be placed between the quay face and the anchor system, and there would be a reinforced concrete capping beam. Additional piling might be required to support the rails for the quayside cranes.

1.175 The main tubular steel piles used in the quay wall construction would be of the order of 2m in diameter and 55m in length. Other piles would be typically of 1m to 1.5m in diameter. Between 40m and 70m of total pile length would be installed per metre run of quay wall. Piles would be delivered to the site by water. Percussive pile driving would be restricted to normal working hours (ie between 0800 and 1800 hours on weekdays (except public holidays) and between 0800 and 1300 hours on Saturdays). ABP request that Schedule 3 to the draft HRO be modified by the insertion of paragraph 7G to give effect to this restriction (CD/ABP/121).

Earthworks

1.176 Significant earthworks would be required in preparation for the construction of the Terminal. The soft dredged materials used in the reclamation of Dibden Bay have insufficient strength to support heavy plant and structures. They are also difficult to handle as a fill. They would be improved by the installation of vertical w