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