[Type text][Type text][Type text]

Simran JohalCrowded CoastsUnit 2

SOUTHAMPTON: DIBDEN BAY CASE STUDY

Land reclamation- is the gain of land from the sea, or wetlands, or other water bodies, and restoration of productivity or use to lands that have been degraded by human activities or impaired by natural phenomena. "The process of reconverting disturbed land to its former or other productive uses." Draining of submerged wetlands is often used to reclaim land for agricultural use.

Stakeholder- a person, group or organisation with an interest or concern in something, especially a business. Stakeholders are individuals, groups or organisations that are affected by the activity of the business. Examples include: ABP, Transport and General Workers Union, Council for National Parks, Hampshire County Council.

Southampton is an example of how the UK is developing an area in order for it to keep on bringing in economic benefits. There is a requirement to prepare and environmental impact assessment (EIA) before development takes place.

EIA- aims to identify, predict and evaluate the significant effects of a development on the environment, in this case, Dibden Bay.

Location and Background: South- East England One of the Countries leading ports (2nd busiest) dealing with containerized cargo and cruise ship passengers. The Port of Southampton handles over 6% of the UKs entire seaborne trade. Southampton Water is a tidal estuary of the rivers Test and Itchen. Southampton water flows into the Solent, a stretch of water separating the Isle of Wight from the mainland.New Forest

Why is it Sustainable for industry? Sheltered from storms of the English Channel. Deep water channel allows for large ships to dock Land around the estuary is quite flat which makes it easy to build on.

Container Port- A place where goods are imported and exported in large metal containers, which are transferred between ships and lorries or trains.

Why was a container port needed?

Associated British Ports (ABP), the owner of Southamptons Docks wanted to make Southampton more competitive as a container port.There were concerns that the area may go into decline if development did not take place. In 2000 it became clear that the container port needed to be expanded or expected new business might be lost to mainland European Ports, such as Hamburg, Rotterdam and Le Harve.The plan involved constructing a new deep-water port for container ships- comprising of 2.1 km of docks spreading over an area of 350 hectares.

Dibden bay- and area of land reclaimed in the 1950s and 1960s. Essentially Dibden bay was unbuilt upon.Dibden BayEastern DocksWestern Docks

Why Dibden bay and not Southampton docks?

Southamptons docks had no space for expansion on the Southampton side of the estuary. However on the opposite side of the estuary Dibden bay was prime for development as it was clear and large plot of land.

ABP submitted an application to build the container port on Dibden bay, in 2000. The proposal was examined at a public enquiry, which lasted a year from November 2001.

Dibden bay Proposal

The new port would cost 700 million, take 9 years to build and be capable of handling 6 container ships at a time. 3000 jobs would be created. A new access road to the A326 and a new rail link would be built. The ABP argued that there was a strong case for the development. They cited: the importance of trade to the UK and the fact that 95% is seaborne; the importance to Southampton and the regional economy to develop its facilities and remain internationally competitiveHowever there were proponents and opponents of the argument in the forms of Environmental, Economic and Local stakeholders. There were storms of protests created in response to the proposals.

Local Stakeholders- Hampshire County Council, local parish churches, Residence Against Dibden Bay Port (RADBP)Reasons for objection: Traffic congestion due to 50% increase in trafficUrbanisation of a rural area, adverse impact on quality of life for local residence, pollution.

key dimensions - the economic benefits versus the environmental costs, national need versus local inconvenience and commercial versus ethical and quality of life values.

The Most telling Argument however, did not concern any environmental impacts.Rather that Southampton was not a strong candidate for large- scale expansion of its container port. In fact it was NOT well located on either landwards or seaward sides (relatively far from the heartland of Europe than places like Felixstowe).

Eventually, it lead to the final rejection of the proposal. In a written statement to Parliament on 20"' April 2004 the transport minister, Tony McNulty, stated that -"After carefully considering the Inspector's report and taking into account all relevant considerations, I have decided to refuse permission for the port development, in line with the Inspector s recommendation. "He went on to say that -"Government recognises the nations and industry's need for additional port capacity in order to meet future economic demand. Every proposed port development must nevertheless be justified on its own merits. One important factor in the making of this decision was the environmental impact of the proposals on internationally protected sites. "In conclusion, it was not simply a matter of balancing the environmental costs versus economic benefits. Economic costs were also thrown into the equation as well as arguments in favour of rival ports. Container port expansions were approved for Thamesport, Felixstowe, and Harwich, all east coast ports better for trade with continental Europe.

All this last part is Development!