METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL

ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION SELECT COMMITTEE 1ST AUGUST 2005

CABINET – 3RD AUGUST 2005

REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES

PORT OF MOSTYN – CONSULTATION BY THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AND WELSH ASSEMBLY GOVERNMENT – JULY 2005

1. Executive Summary

1.1 This report outlines a consultation issued in July jointly by the Environment Agency, Department for Transport and Welsh Assembly Government which proposes a response to applications by the Port of Mostyn to carry out dredging and disposal operations in the Dee Estuary. The consultation proposes that a temporary consent of 2 years be granted to carry out dredging (and disposal) to a depth of two metres. The proposed consent is for less extensive dredging than the Port of Mostyn applied for, but potentially deep enough to facilitate the on-going transhipment of A380 wings through the Port.

1.2 The consultation documentation requires that responses should be returned to the Welsh Assembly by Thursday 4th August. The report recommends that subject to the comments raised in Section 4 the course of action proposed by the Regulators be supported in principle, but that in view of the short time available for consultation the Council reserves the right to make further submissions if deemed necessary. In addition it is recommended that the Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Services be given delegated authority to make further representations relating to these matters should this be necessary to safeguard Wirral’s interests.

2. Background

2.1 Members will be aware that the Dee Estuary is protected by designations under the EU Wild Birds Directive as a Special Protection Area (SPA) and is a potential Special Area of Conservation (pSAC) under the EU Habitats Directive (although the latter designation has yet to be notified to the European Commission, UK Government policy is that such sites should be treated as if the designation process had been completed). The protection resulting from these designations is provided by the 1994 Habitats Regulations. In addition the Dee is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Ramsar site. 2.2 The Environment Agency (EA), Department for Transport (DfT) and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) (“the Regulators”) have been considering a series of applications for consents made over the past 4 years by the Port of Mostyn (PoM) that would allow it to undertake dredging operations in its inner approach channel in the Dee Estuary and to dispose of dredged material in the area of the Estuary known as the Mostyn Deep. These applications have been made in order to enable development of its port business, including the now discontinued P&O ro-ro ferry operation to Dublin and the ongoing transhipment of wings from Broughton to Toulouse. The applications were intended to allow the creation of an approach channel to Mostyn with an “advertised depth” of 3.0m. This would require dredging to depths of up to 4m to allow for accretion between dredging operations and involve up to 400,000 cubic metres of material. Wirral’s role in the process is mainly that of consultee, although it also owns a significant proportion of the eastern Estuary.

2.3 Before consents within the Estuary can be granted, the Habitats Directive requires the Regulators to be satisfied, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the proposed activity would not adversely affect the integrity of the European protected sites. In relation to the applications submitted by PoM, Initial work, completed in March 2004 was inconclusive on this issue and following the precautionary principle, the consents were not granted. The main concern was that the proposed operations might cause a net loss of sediment from the Estuary, changing the hydraulic regimes and increasing erosion. This could reduce the inter-tidal area and impact on the benthic ecosystems (eg cockles) used by migratory birds for feeding, which could potentially have adverse effects on the features of the European sites. Members may recall that this decision generated considerable publicity at the time, centred around a perceived threat to the long-term future of the Airbus A380 programme.

2.4 Subsequently, further work was commissioned by the PoM on detailed modelling and analysis of the Estuary, which was passed to the Regulators in the form of a series of reports. In parallel, the Regulators and their advisors (English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales) undertook their own work in accordance with the requirements of the Habitats Directive to:

(a) evaluate whether there are alternative solutions (to those proposed by Mostyn) to meet the objectives of the project, (b) should no alternative solutions be found a case could be made for consent on the grounds of overriding public interest (c) to better understand the morphology and ecology of the Estuary

2.5 The Regulators have reached preliminary conclusions on this work and are seeking views on a consultation paper that summarises the main findings of the studies undertaken. 3.0 The Consultation Paper

3.1 In order to grant consent for the proposed project, the Habitats Directive requires the regulators to determine either that the proposed operations will have no adverse effect on the integrity on the SPA/pSAC, or that there are no alternative solutions to the proposed operations and that they must be carried out for imperative reasons of over-riding public interest. If consent is granted on the latter basis, then compensatory measures must be secured in respect of any adverse effects identified.

Adverse Effect

3.2 The first stage of the exercise therefore required consideration of whether there would be an adverse effect on the integrity of the Dee Estuary from the proposed dredging activity. As identified above, preliminary assessments in March 2004 were inconclusive. Where there is such uncertainty, EU law requires the adoption of a precautionary approach.

3.3 In these circumstances, where adverse effects on site integrity could not be ruled out, consideration turned to the issue of whether there were any alternative approaches (to the dredging and deposition proposed by Mostyn) to delivering the objectives of the PoM. This focused particularly whether some or all of the current shipping activity could be transferred to other ports.

Alternative Solutions

3.4 While general cargo could be potentially transferred to other ports such as Holyhead, the movement of wings for the A380 is potentially more difficult. Each wing is more than 45m in length and with it’s shipping jig weighs some 100,500 kg. At present the wings are moved from Broughton to Mostyn on a specially constructed shallow draft barge (the Afon Dyfrdwy) designed to negotiate the low bridges and sandbanks on the canalised and inner Dee Estuary. This vessel has limited seaworthiness in poor weather and could not carry the wings beyond the sheltered confines of the Estuary except in very calm weather. Because of this the wings are transferred at Mostyn to a purpose built seagoing ro-ro vessel (the Ville de ), which also collects A380 fuselage and tailplane components from Hamburg and Cadiz before arriving at Toulouse.

3.5 Delivery timescales of all these parts are critical to an effective manufacturing process at Toulouse. The Ville de Bordeaux requires a minimum water depth of 8.5m for safe navigation. High tide levels in the approaches to Mostyn and the berthing area of the port are currently less than this value on more than 35% of tides. The ship can therefore only access the port at high water around spring tide periods unless the inner approach channel to the port is maintained by dredging. A channel with a minimum depth of around 1.5m below chart datum is needed to allow the ship to access the port at high water on around 90% of tides.

3.6 A report summarising the assessment of alternative methods of transport was prepared by an independent transport expert at Cardiff University. The findings of this study were as follows:

· There are alternative solutions for the practical delivery of the Port of Mostyn’s services at other port locations, apart from the shipment of A380 wings

· Air, road or rail is not a practicable option for the transport of A380 wings

· Transhipment by tug-barge of shallow draft coastal vessel to facilities on the Mersey does not offer practicable short-term option for the export of A380 wings

· That since there are no practically accessible alternatives, the facilities at Mostyn are essential for the export of A380 wings.

· In the longer term, a combination of the existing two vessels, plus an additional shallow draft sea-going barge (which could transfer the wings to another port such as Liverpool) offers a practicable option which would reduce dredging requirements and mean that the Ville de Bordeaux would not have to load wings at Mostyn. The availability of this option in future is subject to the additional sea- going barge being commissioned, which is a judgement for Airbus based on their view of commercial risk. Until then however, it will be necessary for the Ville de Bordeaux to continue to use Mostyn and for adequate depths to be available for safe navigation in the approach channels.

Alternative dredge and disposal options

3.7 In parallel with assessment of the transport alternatives, the Regulators continued to work with the Port of Mostyn to improve understanding of the behaviour of the Estuary, including the development of a computer- based predictive model which has been used to examine a range of dredging scenarios – depths of 3.5m, 2m and 1.5m. This work suggested that a reduced dredge depth of 2m may have reduced impacts on the Estuary. Various disposal options which ensure that the dredged material is retained in the Estuary were also considered.

3.8 Having considered this information, the Regulators undertook a new draft “appropriate assessment” of dredging to 2m to maintain an advertised depth of 1.5m. The assessment focused on those species and habitat features protected by the European designations potentially at risk from dredging operations. These are Oystercatcher and Knot populations (protected under the SPA designation) and Atlantic Salt Meadow and Salicornia and other annuals which colonise sand and mud (protected under the pSAC designation). The potential hazards to the sand and mud features arising from dredging are; direct physical damage; loss of intertidal habitat for prey species (particularly cockle beds) for the birds and excessive deposition reducing the extent of habitat in the Estuary.

3.9 The draft assessment concludes that provided the consents are time limited (24 months) it is certain (i.e. no scientific doubt) that there would be no adverse effect on the integrity of the protected site. For a consent of longer duration, more empirical evidence would be necessary to increase confidence regarding longer-term changes in the Estuary. The granting of any consent should be conditional on the applicant funding a monitoring programme agreed by the Regulators to monitor change in the Estuary and inform future consenting decisions.

Consideration of over-riding public interest

3.10 The Regulators also commissioned work to investigate whether there was an over-riding public interest case for dredging to proceed. This would be important in the event that no alternative options for shipment of A380 wings could be found and some adverse impact on the European sites unavoidable. The Regulators considered a report prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers for the Welsh Development Agency. The report considers the economic impact of Mostyn at the local, Wales and UK level through two scenarios – one where dredging was allowed and one where it was not. The difference in economic impact between the two scenarios is £174 million at the local level, £250m at the Wales level and £1.291 billion at the UK level. These figures relate to a difference in employment of over 6,500 full time employees at the local level, 9,000 at the Wales level and 39,000 at the UK level. Evidence was also provided by the Department of Trade and Industry on the economic implications of a delay in transporting A380 wings from Broughton.

3.11 The reports confirmed that effective wing transportation arrangements are essential to underpin the very substantial investment and large numbers of jobs in the UK. The report suggests that fuselage construction in Germany, tailplane construction in Spain and final assembly in would be stopped if wing shipments stopped because it would not be possible to assemble whole aircraft at Toulouse. This would put the A380 programme at severe risk and undermine the wider European Airbus programme. The continuation of the Airbus operation at Broughton is seen as being of major economic significance to the UK and European economy.

3.12 The preliminary view of the Regulators is that the transhipment of Airbus wings through Mostyn would constitute over-riding public interest in the context of the Habitats Directive. This would only need to be considered however if there were no alternatives available which had no impact on the integrity of the site. In this case however, the Regulator’s preliminary view is that a 2m dredge would not adversely affect the integrity of the SPA and as such the over-riding public interest test does not need to be applied at this stage.

4.0 Directors Comments

4.1 The Regulators (i.e. Department of Transport, Environment Agency and Welsh Assembly Government) are responsible for determining the applications by PoM for dredging and deposition works. The consultation paper has been prepared to ensure that interested parties - including Wirral – have a chance to express their views on the suggested course of action. Unfortunately the period allowed for consultation has been very short (less than 4 weeks from the date of receipt) and it has not been possible to review all the extensive supporting documentation – which has to be inspected at the Environment Agency’s Offices in Buckley.

4.2 Wirral Borough Council is an owner of a substantial portion of the Dee Estuary and as such has a direct interest in activities in the Estuary which may have a potential impact on, for example, nature conservation. In 2002, Officers highlighted to the Marine Consents and Environment Unit (which acts on behalf of the Welsh Assembly Government and DEFRA in England) the key issues of concern relating to dredging and disposal in the Estuary:

· Anticipated morphological changes within the Estuary, particularly on the English Side · Impacts on the cockle beds · Impact on the erosion of Dee Cliffs (designated as an SSSI) · Predicted impact on the complex flood and ebb channels and tidal flows within the Dee Estuary · Impact on the various European and National nature conservation designations within the Estuary · Impact on the spread of Spartina within the Estuary

To these can be added the economic considerations surrounding the Airbus programme at Broughton, which draws its workforce from a wide area, including Wirral.

4.3 In relation to Wirral’s interests as listed above, the impact on Cockle beds, channel flows and morphology is covered, but relatively little mention is made of impacts on the English side of the Estuary: this may well be because there are none, but it would be helpful if this was spelt out more clearly in the final appropriate assessment. What is also evident is that it is not always possible to state with absolute certainty that changes in one part of the Estuary are the direct or indirect result of activity such as dredging elsewhere. There still remains some uncertainty about longer-term changes in the Estuary associated with dredging and disposal. As such, the precautionary approach proposed by the Regulators seems sensible. The parallel monitoring programme which PoM would be expected to fund in the event of consent being granted would establish whether this level of dredging or deposition could be sustained in the longer term. It will be important that the findings of this monitoring work are provided to interested parties, such as Wirral Borough Council.

4.4 With regard to Airbus, assuming a time limited consent is granted for a two-metre dredge, it would appear that this will help safeguard the transhipment of wings from Mostyn in the short term without impacting on the integrity of the European nature conservation sites. The two- year period would give also Airbus the opportunity to consider whether to pursue the suggested option of commissioning another sea-going barge to transfer the wings from Mostyn to another location such as the Port of Liverpool, thus removing the need for the Ville de Bordeaux to call at Mostyn and reducing the dredging requirement in the Dee Estuary. This would presumably involve Airbus balancing the additional costs involved against the risk that future consents to dredge in the Dee to the depth needed may not be forthcoming. The consultation paper does provide Airbus with some comfort in this respect, in suggesting that a case of over-riding public interest could be established in the case of the wings transhipment, so that even if the monitoring work suggested some harm to the integrity of the European Sites, future consents might still be granted under the over-riding public interest test. No doubt Airbus will be making their own representations on this issue.

5. Conclusion

5.1 Overall, subject to the inclusion of some clarification in the finalised appropriate assessment as to the impacts of the proposed dredging and disposal on the Wirral side of the Estuary, plus a commitment to share the findings of on-going monitoring work, I would recommend that the course of action proposed by the Regulators be supported in principle, but that given the short time allowed for consultation, the Council should reserve the right to make further submissions if deemed necessary. It is suggested the Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Services be given delegated authority to make further representations relating to these matters should this be necessary to safeguard Wirral’s interests.

6 Financial and Staffing Implications

6.1 There are no financial and staffing implications arising directly from this report

7. Equal Opportunity Implications

7.1 There are no equal opportunity implications arising directly from this report.

8 Human Rights Implications

8.1 There are no human rights implications arising directly from this report

9. Community Safety Implications

9.1 There are no community safety implications arising directly from this report.

10. Local Agenda 21 Implications

10.1 Safeguarding the environmental and nature conservation interests of the Dee is central to the consideration of these applications

11. Ward Member Implications

11.1 This report has no specific ward member implications.

12 Recommendations

12.1 That Cabinet be recommended that the course of action proposed by the Regulators - consents for a reduced dredge depth (2 metres) to be granted for a limited period of 24 months, subject to a requirement to implement a monitoring programme - be supported in principle, subject to the comments made in paragraph 4.3 regarding clarification of impacts on Wirral.

12.2 That in view of the short time allowed for consultation, the Council reserves the right to make further submissions if deemed necessary and that Cabinet be recommended to give the Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Services delegated authority to make further representations relating to these matters should this be necessary to safeguard Wirral’s interests.

J Wilkie Deputy Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Services This report was prepared by John Entwistle of the Forward Planning Section who can be contacted on 691 8221.