APPENDIX 8
REPORT TO: Cabinet Planning Committee
DATE: 9th February 2006 15th February 2006
SUBJECT: Harbour Revision Order for new MDHC Container Berth and Terminal at Seaforth WARDS AFFECTED: Linacre, Ford, Church
REPORT OF: Andy Wallis, Planning & Economic Regeneration Director
CONTACT OFFICER: Jim Alford – Ext: 3544
EXEMPT/CONFIDENTIAL:
PURPOSE/SUMMARY:
To update members on MDHC’s application for a Harbour Revision Order for a new berth/terminal at Seaforth and extinguishment of rights of way, in the light of further discussions and the current statutory situation. To date, the Council has lodged a holding objection. The reports sets out the considerable progress made in resolving the concerns in the holding objection, recognises the constructive approach of MDHC to the Council’s concerns and acknowledges the economic importance of the proposed investment.
REASON WHY DECISION REQUIRED:
A Public Local Inquiry has been arranged to start 26/04/2006 A Pre-Inquiry meeting will take place on 14 February 2006. The Council needs to consider further what views it wishes to put to the Pre- Inquiry meeting and Public Inquiry.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1. That Cabinet notes the progress made in resolving outstanding concerns and authorises the officers to continue discussions with MDHC on measures to mitigate environmental impacts with a view to withdrawing the holding objection.
2 That Cabinet notes the letter received from MDHC and welcomes the proposals set out within it.
3 That Planning Committee note the contents of the report.
KEY DECISION: No
FORWARD PLAN: Not appropriate
IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Not appropriate
APPENDIX 8
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:
None
IMPLICATIONS:
Budget/Policy Framework: None
Financial: Legal costs below
Legal: Counsel has been appointed to act for the Council presenting its case
Risk Assessment: Not appropriate
Asset Management: Not appropriate
CONSULTATION UNDERTAKEN/VIEWS
CORPORATE OBJECTIVE MONITORING:
Corporate Positive Neutral Negative Objective Impact Impact Impact 1 Creating a Learning Community √ 2 Creating Safe Communities √ 3 Jobs and Prosperity √ 4 Improving Health and Well-Being √ 5 Environmental Sustainability √ 6 Creating Inclusive Communities √ 7 Improving the Quality of Council Services and √ Strengthening local Democracy 8 Children and Young People √
LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS RELIED UPON IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS REPORT
APPENDIX 8
BACKGROUND:
1. The Mersey Docks & Harbour Company (MDHC) is proposing a major new container terminal at Seaforth and is seeking approval for a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) from the Secretary of State for Transport. Sefton was a statutory consultee. A report (attached) was submitted to Planning Committee (21st September 2005) and Cabinet (29th September 2005). In view of the very short timescales involved at the time, the following resolutions were made to lodge a holding objection.
The Planning Committee on 21st September 2005 (Minute No. 76 refers) had considered the report and had resolved that the Cabinet be recommended to:-
(i) lodge a holding objection with the Secretary of State for Transport on the basis that the Council required more time to properly consider the information contained in the EIA and its impact on the Borough and its residents;
(ii) lodge a holding objection with the Secretary of State for Transport to the proposal to extinguish the public right to the promenade along the sea wall in order to seek the views of local people and interested parties, to establish whether the whole of the right to the promenade needed to be extinguished and to consider whether further options were available.
Cabinet on 29th September 2005 resolved that:
(1) the resolution of the Planning Committee be confirmed; and (2) a further report be submitted to Cabinet in due course;
2. The Council has now been advised that a public inquiry will be held which is due to start on Tuesday 25th April 2006 and is being programmed for 6 days. A Pre-Inquiry meeting is to be held on Tuesday 14th February to be chaired by the Inspector appointed by DfT. It is therefore important for the Council to clarify what views and evidence if any it wishes to put to the Inspector. A number of meetings have been held with MDHC and their advisors and information on a number of technical matters is still outstanding at the time of drafting this report. Any further information will therefore be made available to members at the meeting. The Council does not have specific information concerning other parties who have made objections and intend to appear at the Inquiry.
3. The relevant policy and environmental issues are set out in the previous report.
i) Strategic and Planning Framework
Port - policy
The replacement Sefton Unitary Development Plan is in its final stages. Policy EDT 1 identifies the Port and Maritime Zone in Bootle as a Strategic Employment Location where “the priority will be port-linked development in the distribution and manufacturing sectors, where access to docks, rail freight facilities and the strategic highway network is a advantage”. Policies EDT 9 (the Port and Maritime Zone) and NC 1 (Nature Conservation) define the type of development appropriate within the port area and the limitations on development required to protect the Seaforth Nature Reserve. None of these policies have been the subject of representations at the recently concluded Modifications Inquiry.
The Mersey Ports, and the Port of Liverpool in particular, have been identified as a key economic driver for Merseyside, the wider City region and the North West. With the strong support of the Northern Way Growth Strategy and North West Development Agency, the Merseyside sub-regional partnership is promoting a Port Growth Strategy as a key action in support of the Liverpool City Region Development Plan.
The strong regional policy support for the Port Growth Strategy has most recently been confirmed in the Regional Economic Strategy (December 2005) and Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (January
APPENDIX 8
2006) documents submitted to the Secretary of State. ii) Coastal Processes
The Director of Technical Services is broadly satisfied with the approach, content and conclusions of the Environmental Assessment. English Nature, the Environment Agency and other statutory bodies have been consulted in their own right and will be able to make their own comments. The Director does not consider there will be harmful impacts on the Sefton Coast and accordingly considers no objections (or evidence) be put forward on this issue.
iii) Traffic
Seaforth Triangle – Transport Assessment; comments of the Technical Services Director
Mersey Docks and Harbour Company commissioned consultants to undertake the transportation element of the Environmental Assessment in support of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company’s (MDHC) proposals for a new river terminal. This was submitted with the Harbour Revision Order.
The format and content of the assessment embraces the principles required by local authorities when considering the transport impacts of major developments. However, in the absence of specific guidance from available documentation for the assessment of container terminals, the Consultant developed baseline assumptions in consultation with Sefton and Liverpool Council’s and the Highway Agency.
Rail Freight Distribution
The transport assessment indicates proposals to maximise the opportunities for using rail freight distribution. MDHC will continue to support increased container throughput by rail using the existing enlarged rail head facility.
Internal and external improvements have been identified by MDHC and they are in discussion with Network Rail, Merseytravel and Sefton in relation to pursuing these options and thus further enhance rail freight usage by increasing capacity through to the main West Coast Main Line routes.
Road Freight Distribution
Baseline Information
MDHC have stated that the current terminal is at capacity (hence the need to expand at Seaforth River Terminal) the notional capacity being defined as round 500,000 teu’s (20ft equivalent units). The proposed extension to the Port of Liverpool container terminal is forecast to lead to a doubling of this capacity, so a further accommodation of around half a million teu’s per annum is forecast.
The projected opening date for the terminal is 2008, when it is estimated an additional 100,000teu’s will be handled, with the facility not becoming fully operational until 2016.
To determine the trip generation the consultant analysed the following data from recorded surveys and past records:
• Number of ships – arrival patterns, container capacity etc. • Number of lifts from ships by each crane each day • Number of container lifts onto and off all road vehicles • Total number of vehicles importing or exporting a container, or both
With this information it is possible to estimate the profile by quantity and time of day, of containers arriving and leaving the port and the impact on the transport networks.
The assessment assumes all additional containers are moved by road as a robust test of the impacts. However, as indicated above, it is acknowledged in the Transport Assessment that all opportunities to increase the use of Rail freight through the Seaforth Rail Freight Terminal will be
APPENDIX 8
progressed.
To determine the distribution of the additional HGV’s onto the highway network the following surveys and records were complied:
• Internal Distribution: Dock access records for both the Seaforth and Crosby Road gates. • External Distribution: Driver interview surveys undertaken for previous development proposals and for the Port of Liverpool Strategic Transport Access Study completed in January 2004.
From this data the estimated HGV movements as a result of the proposed Seaforth Triangle Container base expansion could be calculated as indicated in the following table (when new terminal fully operational)
Route Hour Profile A565 (N) A5036 A565 (S) A5058 A565 Regent Road Start 2-way Crosby Rd Princess Way Rimrose Balliol Road Derby Road Road 00:00 1% 0 9 3 2 1 2 01:00 1% 0 11 4 2 1 3 02:00 1% 0 5 2 1 1 1 03:00 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 1% 0 5 2 1 1 1 05:00 2% 1 14 5 3 2 3 06:00 4% 1 36 13 7 5 8 07:00 7% 2 64 22 12 9 15 08:00 7% 2 64 22 12 9 15 09:00 6% 2 50 17 10 7 12 10:00 7% 2 64 22 12 9 15 11:00 7% 2 64 22 12 9 15 12:00 8% 3 68 24 13 9 16 13:00 8% 3 68 24 13 9 16 14:00 8% 3 68 24 13 9 16 15:00 8% 3 68 24 13 9 16 16:00 9% 3 77 27 15 10 18 17:00 5% 2 45 16 9 6 11 18:00 4% 1 32 11 6 4 7 19:00 4% 1 32 11 6 4 7 20:00 3% 1 23 8 4 3 5 21:00 3% 1 23 8 4 3 5 22:00 1% 0 13 4 2 2 3 23:00 1% 0 9 3 2 1 2 35 908 317 177 122 212
It is evident from the above flow profiles, that the peak impact on Sefton’s road network is felt along the A5036 Princess Way where an additional 77 two-way HGV movements are forecast for the period 16:00 to 17:00. Additional two-way HGV movements in the Am and Pm peaks are given as 64 and 45 respectively for the same route.
The above HGV predictions are in line with those determined for 2016 in the Technical Report for the Port of Liverpool: Strategic Transport Access Study, commissioned by Sefton and Liverpool Councils and the Highways Agency and completed in January 2004.
Impact Assessment
APPENDIX 8
A5036 Princess Way / Church Road / Dunnings Bridge Road
The assessment of generated HGV movements indicates that the main impact on the highway network will be on The A5036 route between the Port and Switch Island M57/M58 junction. This route is classified as a Trunk Road of National Importance and is the responsibility of the Highway Agency.
At the time of drafting the report the results of the Highway Agency’s consideration of the Transportation Assessment is not available. The Agency have submitted a holding objection to the H arbour Revision Order. 2016 Background Traffic Levels – Development Fully Operational H owever, as traffic on the route impacts on traffic patterns on Sefton’s roads and affects local residents the Traffic Assessment with regard to this route has been analysed.
2005 Background Traffic Levels
Route AM Peak PM Peak 12 Hour Flow 24 Hour Total HGV’s Flow
A5036 1896 2032 17923 3500(19%) 22336 Princess Way A5036 2027 1949 19277 3500(17%) 24044 Church Road A5036 3238 3421 30264 5500(18%) 37566 Dunnings
The National Road Traffic Forecasts produced by the Department for Transport predict that overall and HGV traffic levels will grow at similar rates. In keeping with current regeneration trends on Merseyside, historically low car ownership and Local Transport Plan commitments to reduce the reliance on the private car, low growth predictions have been used.
2008 Background Traffic Levels – Projected Development Opening Year
APPENDIX 8
A5036 2680 2460 24600 4190(17%) 30120 Church Road A5036 3990 4010 37430 6340(18%) 45840 Dunnings Bridge Road
The theoretical capacity of a two lane dual carriageway with high HGV flows ( ie 20%) is 5220 vehicles per hour. Therefore, even allowing for additional traffic due to the development the capacity of the links is well within acceptable standards.
However, on a busy urban network it is not the links that are the critical factor, but the capacity of the junctions and these come under most pressure during the AM and PM peak periods (ie periods of highest traffic flows on all routes).
Analysis of HGV traffic patterns on the A5036 would indicate that the volume of vehicles is relatively consistent throughout the working day (ie 7:00 to 19:00).
Therefore considering flows on A5036 Princess Way the following comparison can be made,
Year AM Peak PM Peak All Traffic HGV’s All Traffic HGV’s
2008 2131 380 2188 390
2016 2310 420 2370 430
The submitted Transport Assessment indicated the impact of additional traffic could be summarised as follows:
A5036 Princess Way: Assuming total additional flow occurs at opening –
Peak Period Background Flow Generated Flow %age Increase
AM Peak 2131 64 3.0%
PM Peak 2188 45 2.1%
The Transportation Assessment subsequently concludes that as in overall terms the additional traffic on the route is less than 3% in the AM peak and 2% in the PM peak, and based on nationally accepted guidelines such a level of increase is considered insignificant and further analysis is not necessary.
The Highway Agency consider that such a broad assessment of the impact on their road could mask specific impact at key junctions particularly where high volumes of HGV’s are involved. They have subsequently requested further analysis and will share the results with the Council. This information has not been received at the time of drafting the report.
As previously indicated the Port of Liverpool: Strategic Transport Access Study completed in January 2004, acknowledged the higher growth rate of HGV’s on the road network as a result of potential developments on the Port and Atlantic Gateway SIA areas. The study also used a horizon of 2016 to assess the impact of future traffic growth. As part of the study detailed assessments of the key junctions on the A5036 were undertaken using these higher traffic projections than baseline traffic growth forecasts.
The study concluded that over this period of time there will be a deterioration of conditions on the road network with increased congestion and delay, with no improvement to environmental
APPENDIX 8 conditions.
The Council, subsequently approved to support a strategy to address the short to medium term issues, comprising measures to promote Modal Transfer, Management and Mitigation and an incremental approach to the implementation of junction improvements triggered by developments along the A5036 corridor. This strategy is being promoted through the Local Transport Plan in partnership with the Highway Agency and the Atlantic Gateway SIA development plans.
Other Routes
The impact on other routes in the South Sefton area were also assessed and the impacts summarised as follows:
Increases in Traffic Resulting from Seaforth River Terminal Proposals Year of Opening 2008:
Route AM Peak PM Peak Background Generated %age Background Generated %age Flow Flow Increase Flow Flow Increase
A565 2665 9 0.3% 2369 6 0.3% Derby Road
A5058 1313 12 0.9% 1273 9 0.7% Balliol Road
A565 4319 2 0.0% 4173 2 0.0% Crosby Road North
It can be concluded from these results that there will be very minimal impact as a result of this development on these roads and further assessment is not required with regard to delays and congestion on the routes. However, on Balliol Road, in the vicinity of Queens Road and Hugh Baird College, the projected increase in HGV flows further supports the need for improved pedestrian crossing facilities to be provided.
Travel Planning for Employees
The Transportation Assessment has considered the affects of traffic generated by additional employee vehicle movements, but these are considered to be negligible in the context of general traffic growth associated with the Strategic Investment Area. However, additional movements will be tackled by Travel Planning initiatives to be discussed with Travelwise officers of Sefton / Merseytravel. iv) Noise, Vibration, Air Quality
Overview of potential environmental impact
The proposed application to develop and expand the dock facilities will inevitably have an environmental impact on residential dwellings adjacent to the docks area. The existing operations on the docks and industrial processes within the docks compound have given rise to complaints over the years to the Environmental Protection Department. Local residents specifically complain about operations that generate dust, odour and noise. The noise impact assessment indicates that
APPENDIX 8
existing daytime ambient noise level in the Bootle area generally is about 60dBLAeq with a background noise level of 50dBLA90. The World Health Organisation has published guidelines on community noise that indicates outdoor living areas should not exceed 55dBLAeq to promote a healthy environment. This new development has the potential to cause further disturbance from intensified activities within the docks area and an increase in traffic on major routes.
Construction phase
The construction phase of this development is likely to be inherently noisy, therefore a scheme of works for all major construction phases identifying best practicable means for controlling noise from operations is required. This should be submitted for approval prior to commencement of construction phases and should specifically identify works with hours of operation and specific controls in place.
Environmental Noise Directive (END)
The aim and effect of END is to prevent and reduce on a priority basis the harmful effects of exposure to environmental noise. The Government is shortly to put in place The Environmental Noise Regulations in exercise of the powers of the European Communities Act. This will put an onus on responsible bodies to produce noise maps and strategic plans to reduce noise from:
Major Roads National Railways Major Airports Major Ports Certain Industrial activities
The proposed legislation is not clear at the present time as to the responsible body for implementation of END for port activities. However it would be expected to be the Port Authority as the enforcing body.
The concern for this development is the implementation of END and the effect that the noise reduction strategy will have on current noise levels and noise levels generated by the proposed development. The noise impact assessment indicates that overall port operations will increase background noise levels operations by 5dB LA90. Although the noise assessment does not indicate the ambient noise level will rise, the effect will be an insidious rise of the general noise climate in the area.
It also estimates that road traffic will increase by 5% on Princess Way (A5036) equating to an increase of 1.1 dB. The assessment states ”In the period following a change in traffic flow, people may find appreciable benefits or disbenefits where noise changes are as small as 1dBA, equivalent to a change in traffic flow of 25%”.
The applicant must be able to show that the development will not have a negative effect on the noise climate of the existing docks operations after the implementation of the initial noise reduction strategy. Therefore an undertaking should be required for the potential impact of the development to be included in the initial strategic plans.
Predicted noise levels
The report indicates the predicted operational noise levels from the development will most affect residential dwellings on the North of the development on Brunswick Parade, Cambridge Road and Waterloo Road. This shows the major impact is during the night time periods where the predicted level increases by 13 - 18 dBLAeq. It should be noted that a 10 dB rise equates to doubling of perceived noise so this a significant rise.
Predicted operational noise levels Existing noise levels
Day 57 dBLAeq 52 -56 dBLAeq Night 45-50 dBLAeq 32 dBLAeq
APPENDIX 8
Night 45-50 dBLAeq 32 dBLAeq
‘The major source of noise at Crosby relates to HGV movements. Noise levels would be reduced by appropriate shielding along the road at the entrance to the terminal. This could take the form either of buildings, or an appropriate noise barrier, and noise levels would be expected to reduce to below 45dBLAeq and, hence, meet the WHO criterion, although it could exceed the BS4142 criterion. There are a number of buildings existing and proposed along the access road which would provide acoustic shielding along a section of the access road.’
‘The noise assessment has shown that the largest impact (of moderate adverse significance) from road traffic will occur from HGVs arriving and departing at the entrance to the Seaforth estate at night. The noise levels could however be reduced by appropriate shielding along the road at the entrance to the terminal. This could take the form either of buildings, or an appropriate noise barrier, on the dock estate and noise levels would be expected to reduce to below 45dBLAeq and, hence, meet the WHO criterion, although it could exceed the BS4142 criterion.
There are a number of buildings (both existing and proposed) along the access road which would provide acoustic shielding along a section of the access road. The shielding effects of these buildings will act as a mitigation measure such that the long-term effects will be of minor adverse significance. Aside from this local effect no significant impact is expected from the elevated numbers of HGV movements.’
These 2 quotes from the document identify the main concern about the development - the increase in traffic movements on the existing perimeter road and the effects on the residential area to the North, as this area has no acoustic shielding to protect residential amenity.
This area will furthermore, be affected by the construction phase of the development with the associated traffic.
Impact and impulsive noise is the major source of complaints concerning the existing dock operations, this generally has been accepted during daytime operations. However, at night especially during the summer months when windows are open for ventilation this type of noise does generate complaints. The report indicates the same residential area is the most affected with the predicted maximum operational night time noise levels as follows:
Predicted maximum Existing maximum 44-49 dBLAmax 35-39 dBLAmax
It should be noted that this level is under the requirement of WHO guidance, which specifies a maximum noise level externally of 60 dBLAmax.
It would be prudent to require a scheme of works for acoustic barriers for all areas of the perimeter road to protect adjacent residential dwellings, which currently have line of sight to the road, prior to the construction phase. The scheme of works should be submitted for approval. The approved scheme should be implemented before the commencement of the construction phase and adequately maintained thereafter.
It is noted control of impact and impulsive noise is by the nature of the activity of the port problematical. The identification and strategy to review measures to control environmental noise should be undertaken within the Environmental Noise Regulations when this comes into force.
Relocation of Scrap
This impact of relocating this operation from Gladstone Dock has not been assessed. It is assumed that the operation will be consolidated at Alexandra Dock, which is within a few hundred metres of high-rise residential properties with a direct line of sight to the dock. Scrap loading and movement can generate complaints from a considerable distance.
Air Quality
APPENDIX 8
Additional assessments are being undertaken and the scope and methodology proposed has been agreed with the consultants.
v) Nature Conservation
In relation to the methodology used, the Environmental Assessment (EIA) lacks information and has inconsistencies relating the summary to the detailed reports. The principal difficulty is that the EIA does not provide sufficient information to come to a firm view on the nature conservation sites (Sefton Coast SAC, the Ribble & Alt Estuaries SPA and Ramsar site, the Mersey Narrows and North Wirral Foreshore pSPA) in Sefton. The site of the proposed berth/terminal is not an area used to any great extent by birds and the Director suspects the impact on nature conservation matters will be slight. However, it is not yet possible to make a firm conclusion on the evidence provided. It is understood that English Nature has similar concerns and has lodged an objection on those grounds.
vi) Public Right of Way
The current proposal from MDHC involves the extinguishment of the public right to promenade with the exception of a short section from the Crosby Marine Park to the Radar Station. The Council has lodged a holding objection on this specific matter. It is understood other parties have objected to this element of the proposal, although the Director has no specific details. In discussions, MDHC recognise the need to give further thought to this issue and the Director is expecting further proposals to be presented.
vii) Landscape / Visual Impacts
The Seaforth Docks are characterised by substantial buildings eg the grain terminal, corn mills, MDHC offices, warehouses, by port structures such as cranes and the wind turbines, and extensive open storage particularly of containers. New quayside cranes will be substantial (approx 100 m high) but this would be in keeping with the character of this part of the port. The new berths would be over 1,000 m from the nearest dwellings and much would be screened by existing buildings.
The new berth and associated container storage areas will necessitate the relocation of the scrap storage facilities at Gladstone and Seaforth minor berths to Alexandra Dock. This has been dealt with through an application from the scrap operator.
The Director considers the proposal would be acceptable from a landscape/visual perspective and that no specific mitigation measures are required in terms of impacts on Sefton. Wirral MBC has been separately consulted and will comment in respect of any impact on Wirral on visual grounds.
4. Response from MDHC
Meetings were held between your officers and those of MDHC towards the end of 2005 to consider highway and environmental impacts, the need for further information and potential mitigation. Discussions have continued involving MDHC Directors and Council members and MDHC have put forward proposals to meet the Council’s concerns. A copy of MDHC’s letter is attached to this report.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
This is a large and complex proposal which potentially has wide ranging economic and environmental impacts. In economic terms the impacts are positive and potentially very significant. In regional and sub-regional terms the Port has a major role. Its continuing growth and prosperity is of the greatest importance in the local economy in terms of creating jobs and supporting economic activity. The Port needs to maintain its competitive position to cater for the greatest range of vessels. Therefore in planning policy and regeneration terms, the proposal is to be welcomed.
The fundamental issue is whether the proposal involves environmental or other impacts which are
APPENDIX 8 sufficiently harmful to justify withholding support. The most immediate issue is traffic. The capacity of the rail network to increase container traffic by rail appears limited; the vast bulk of containers will be delivered by road. The Technical Services Director considers the network can cope with the additional traffic but he and the Highways Agency have concerns about impacts at junctions. Further information is awaited from MDHC’s consultants to demonstrate there would be sufficient capacity to avoid unreasonable and unnecessary congestion and delay. There are other specific and localised highway issues, eg the pedestrian flows across Balliol Road and the impact of further HGV traffic, where mitigation measures would be appropriate.
Arising from traffic are issues relating to noise, vibration and air quality. The existing main routes are already well used by HGVs. The projected increase in traffic will have a modest impact; much of the residential development along the main routes already has protective glazing to reduce the impact of noise. The Environmental Protection Director’s greatest concern is in respect of the first 400 metres within the Port where the road is close to houses particularly along Cambridge Road. The configuration and quality of the roadway causes noise; the expected increase in traffic would add significantly to noise experienced at the dwellings. Measures to mitigate the impact of noise from HGV traffic in this area are in the view of the Environmental Protection Director a requirement.
It is expected that further information will shortly be available to demonstrate the capacity of junctions, impact on air quality and impacts on nature conservations. The Director believes the outstanding technical concerns can be resolved subject to suitable mitigation measures in appropriate cases. It is not possible to give a precise timetable; it is possible this will continue beyond the meeting of the Cabinet and Planning Committee.
At this stage the one remaining significant uncertainty relates to the proposal to extinguish the Right to Promenade and what measures might be put forward in mitigation. Your officers will report verbally to the meeting.
APPENDIX 8
Committee: PLANNING CABINET
Date Of Meeting: 21 September 2005
Title of Report: Harbour Revision Order for new MDHC container berth and terminal at Seaforth
Report of: Andy Wallis Planning and Economic Regeneration Director
Contact Officer: Jim Alford Telephone 0151 934
This report contains Yes No
Confidential information 9
Exempt information by virtue of paragraph(s) ……… of Part 1 of 9 Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972
Is the decision on this report DELEGATED? 9
Purpose of Report:
To provide information on MDHC’s application for a Harbour Revision Order for a new berth and terminal and Seaforth, and extinguishment of rights of way; the process of decision making and the role of Sefton Council.
Recommendation(s):
1. That Planning Committee recommends :
a) a holding objection be lodged with the Secretary of State for Transport on the basis that the Council requires more time to properly consider the information contained in the EIA and its impact on the Borough and its residents
b) a holding objection be lodged with the Secretary of State for Transport to the proposal to extinguish the public right to promenade along the sea wall in order to seek the views of local people and interested parties, to establish whether the whole of the right to promenade needs to be extinguished and to consider whether further options are available
2. That Cabinet confirm the resolution of Planning Committee.
APPENDIX 8
Corporate Objective Monitoring
Corporate Objective Impact Positive Neutral Negative 1 Creating A Learning Community 2 Creating Safe Communities 3 Jobs & Prosperity 4 Improving Health & Well Being 5 Environmental Sustainability 6 Creating Inclusive Communities 7 Improving The Quality Of Council Services & Strengthening Local Democracy 8 Children & Young People
Financial Implications
None.
Departments consulted in the preparation of this Report
Legal Director Technical Services Director Environmental Protection Director
List of Background Papers relied upon in the preparation of this report
Letters and enclosures from Rees & Freres concerning the Harbour Revision Order dated 23/08/2005 Environmental Statement
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
1. Introduction
1.1 The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company (MDHC) is proposing a major new container terminal at Seaforth by building a new sea wall and reclaiming land. MDHC is seeking a Harbour Revision Order (not a planning application) which will be considered by the Secretary of State for Transport. Sefton will be a consultee. This report will deal with :-
i) a description of the proposed development ii) the statutory process iii) the role of Sefton Council iv) the relevant planning and environmental issues v) proposed courses of action vi) recommendations
2. Description of the proposed development
2.1 MDHC propose a new deep water river terminal at Seaforth (location plan attached). The proposal involves :-
i) a new wall approximately 750 m long between the south west corner of the Royal Seaforth Dock and along the low water edge of an inter-tidal area known as the ‘Seaforth Triangle’
ii) deepening an area of the river bed to –15 m CD to create a 40 m wide ‘berth pocket’ for post Panamax vessels
iii) reclamation of the enclosed area behind the new wall using dredged materials.
2.2 MDHC is considering 2 methods of construction - concrete caisson which would involve the installation of precast concrete units onto bedrock foundations
i) concrete caisson which would involve the installation of precast concrete units onto bedrock foundations
ii) piled steel structure, which would be likely to be a combination of pressure (hammering) and drilling. This could also require blasting. The piled option would take 6-9 months (over summer months)
This would be a major engineering operation with construction taking 2½ years to complete. Filling of the area to be reclaimed could start when the new sea wall is part constructed which would involve a temporary bund at 90º to the sea wall. MDHC intend to use dredgings as fill; there may be some temporary storage of dredgings on site.
2.3 The new terminal would initially be operated at existing depths in the river (-6.9 m CD). Within 10 years, it is expected to need to increase depths in the Outer Estuary Navigation Channel (mainly Formby Bar and Crosby Shoal) to –8.0 m CD. This would take 6-9 months to complete.
2.4 The new terminal will cater for lift on/lift off containers. MDHC propose ship to shore cranes similar to those already used at Seaforth. MDHC anticipate throughput of 1000,000 teu (20 ft equivalent units) on opening (2008) growing to approximately 600,000 teu per annum by 2016; this would imply parity with the current container terminal operation.
APPENDIX 8
2.5 The new terminal is to cater for post-Panamax vessels. These are the latest generation of very large container ships which are rapidly becoming the industry standard for international sea-borne trade and most especially on the Transatlantic and Far East routes. These are too large to pass through the existing locks into the impounded berths. If MDHC is to be in a position to compete with those ports in the UK and Europe capable of taking larger vessels new river access and storage facilities will be essential.
2.6 MDHC has looked at alternatives. Widening existing locks would be technically very difficult and very disruptive. Other options eg land north of Seaforth would be less attractive and more intrusive.
2.7 MDHC for practical and safety reasons, is seeking the power to extinguish the public right to promenade along the sea wall in Bootle and Seaforth. Keeping it open would conflict with international port security regulations and with Health and Safety legislation. Alternative solutions will be considered as mitigation.
2.8 MDHC has produced an Environmental Impact Assessment which considers the following :
• physical processes
• water and sediment quality
• nature conservation and aquatic ecology
• fisheries
• coastal defence
• navigation
• road transport
• noise and vibration
• air quality
• landscape and visual
• mitigation and monitoring
A copy of the content pages of the EIA, which is available for public inspection, are attached.
3. The Statutory Process
3.1 MDHC has applied to the Secretary of State for Transport (SOS) to make a Harbour Revision Order under Section 14 of the Harbours Act 1964. This is a statutory process and involves the making of a statutory instrument. This procedure requires the proposed Order to be advertised for 42 days; that was done on 19 August (Liverpool Daily Post & London Gazette) and the consultation period expires on 30 September 2005.
3.2 Representations or objections should be sent to the SOS. If objections are made,
APPENDIX 8
the Harbours Act states that those must be considered at a Public Inquiry and/or be heard by an Inspector. The SOS will consult the Local Authority and interested parties on the proposals on a non-statutory basis.
4. The Role of Sefton Council
4.1 This submission is not a planning application. The Harbour Revision Order is in effect a substitute for the planning process, and will be determined by the SOS. Sefton is therefore a consultee in this process. The Director has put the Environmental Impact Assessment onto the planning register, available for public inspection and has notified those living adjacent to the Dock estate. The Director has notified Ward Councillors and interested parties. MDHC and the SOS are not obliged to carry out any further public notification or consultation.
4.2 The EIA is a very large and complex document. Whilst various officers have been involved in providing background data and contributing to the scoping exercise done by the SOS, the EIA was only made available to the Council on 2 September.
4.3 In view of the timescale, it is vital for the Council to consider and decide what comments it wishes to make in the statutory process before 30 September. Whilst the Council will be consulted separately and subsequently by the SOS, this would be on a non-statutory basis. If objections are made by 30 September, the SOS is required to hold a Public Inquiry and/or have the objections heard by an Inspector and consider the report of the Inspector. Management Board has been made aware of this and agreed that the proposal be considered by Planning Committee on 21 September and Cabinet (date to be arranged).
5. The Relevant Planning and Environmental Issues
5.1 The proposed development raises a range of issues that are relevant to the Council and the residents of Sefton. In the time available preparing this report, these are summarised below; further comments on these issues will be provided for members at the meeting.
5.2 Strategic and Planning Framework
Whilst this is not a planning application, the SOS will be required to have regard to the statutory planning framework set out in the Development Plan and other material considerations. This is addressed in the EIA but the SOS would expect some guidance and comment from the Local Planning Authority (Sefton). The Development Plan comprises Regional Planning Guidance and the Council’s Unitary Development Plan. Material considerations could include the Liverpool City Region Development Plan and Regional Economic Strategy. Policies identify the key role of the port in the economy of Merseyside and the North West.
5.3 Coastal Processes
The proposal has the potential to impact on coastal morphology. The creation of a new sea wall, initial and ongoing dredging will have the potential to impact on the coast. Sefton is the Coastal Defence Authority and would wish to consider these aspects of the proposal.
5.4 Transport Considerations
The proposed development will increase the capacity of the port and in effect double
APPENDIX 8
its container capacity. Currently, the vast majority of container traffic enters and leaves the port by road. Whilst there is, as part of this scheme, a proposal to extend and increase the capacity of the railhead at Seaforth, much of any increase in container traffic will be impact on the road network. The use of the A5036 Dunnings Bridge Road, A565 Rimrose/Derby Road, A5058 Queens Drive/Balliol Road by HGVs for access to the port has been the subject of considerable study. A range of environmental measures have been installed along Dunnings Bridge Road to mitigate the effects of traffic. The EIA contends that the highway network can accommodate the increases in traffic; the highway and environmental implications will need to be carefully examined by Sefton as Highway Authority.
5.5 Noise, Vibration, Air Quality
The creation and operation of a major new terminal will have a range of environmental ‘pollution’ implications :
• the construction process
• impact of increased HGV movements
• potential increase in activity at unsocial hours
• potential increase in rail traffic at Seaforth
The Council would be responsible for monitoring environmental effects and responding to and addressing complaints.
5.6 Nature Conservation
This site has no particular nature conservation designations but it is adjacent to parts of the estuary (both Sefton and Wirral sides) designated as SSSI, Special Protection Area for Birds, Ramsar sites. Members will be aware of the importance of the estuary for wading birds and this is assessed in the EIA. English Nature, RSPB, Lancashire Wildlife Trust were involved in the pre-application scoping exercise and their comments are included in the EIA. English Nature has been formally notified by MDHC of the application for the Harbour Revision Order. The proposal will also impact on the maritime environment including fisheries. The proposal will require an Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Regulations by the relevant and competent authorities.
5.7 Public Right of Way
There is currently a public right to promenade along the sea wall from the Borough boundary to beyond the Radar Station, along the fence adjoining the Crosby Marina/Marine Park to the Seaforth Dock Gates which is set out in statute. MDHC is seeking to extinguish the whole length of this right of way with the exception of a short section from the Radar Station to the boundary with the Marine Park. It is not yet clear what alternative provision is proposed to replace the whole length of the existing (albeit difficult) promenade.
5.8 Landscape and Visual Impacts
The creation of a new berth and the construction of the necessary cranes, lighting etc will have some visual impact. The new berth will be a minimum of 1000 metres from the nearest residential units on Crosby Road South. The berth will also be seen in
APPENDIX 8
association with a range of other port related development and equipment. The berth will be easily viewed by residents across the river on the Wirral; Wirral MBC has been notified of the application.
6. Proposed Courses of Action
Details of the proposal are now being placed on the planning register and those fronting the Dock Estate and other interested parties are being notified, directly, and advised that any comments or objection should be sent to the SOS by 30 September. Any comments received by the Director will be reported to the Committee.
The contents of the EIA have been circulated for detailed analysis and comment. There is a great deal to digest and consider; the Director does not consider this can be completed in sufficient time to enable Planning Committee/Cabinet to fully and properly consider all matters.
As stated earlier, MDHC is required to give notice of the application for the Harbour Revision Order; if objections are made and not subsequently resolved and/or withdrawn, the SOS is obliged to hold an Inquiry and/or allow objectors to be heard by an Inspector. On previous occasions this Council has lodged a ‘holding objection’ to proposals within the Port area and thereby given an opportunity to subsequently discuss and resolve outstanding problems. Following discussions with the Department of Transport, it is understood this is not an uncommon practice. The alternative would be to await consultation from the SOS.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
MDHC is proposing a substantial investment in a major new berth with the potential to attract additional economic activity to the Port and its hinterland. In the context of the Merseyside economy this is welcome.
There are however, potential environmental impacts which need to be fully and carefully considered. There has been insufficient time to consider the volume and detail of information provided. Accordingly the Director recommends that the SOS be informed that Sefton Council wishes to lodge a holding objection to properly consider the information contained in the EIA and its impact on the Borough and its residents. In addition, the Director recommends the Council lodge a holding objection to the proposal to extinguish the public right to promenade along the sea wall in order to seek the views of local people and interested parties, to establish whether the whole of the right to promenade needs to be extinguished, and to consider whether further options are available.
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8
APPENDIX 8