METROPOLITAN BOROUGH OF WIRRAL ECONOMIC REGENERATION AND PLANNING STRATEGY SELECT COMMITTEE – 15th NOVEMBER 2005 CABINET – 16th NOVEMBER 2005 REPORT OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE SERVICES _____________________________________________________________ CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED SEAFORTH RIVER TERMINAL AND CHANNEL DEEPENING 1. Executive Summary 1.1 The Council has been consulted on an application by Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Harbour Revision Order for the construction of a new deep-water berth at Seaforth Docks and deepening of the outer approach channel to the Estuary. The deep-water berth will enable a new generation of container ships - which will be too large to access the enclosed dock system – to load and discharge their cargoes while berthed in the Estuary itself. Some additional dredging is required to facilitate the use of the new facility by these larger vessels. 1.2 The Draft Harbour Revision Order was issued for comment on the 18th August for a six- week period. The Environmental Statement (ES) which accompanies the application was however not issued to consultees until early September. The ES is a lengthy document – 873 pages in length including appendices - and it was not possible to finalise a response and secure the endorsement of Members before the deadline for comments (30th September). As such, officers lodged a holding objection with the Department for Transport, as a way of registering Wirral’s interest in the application and allow time to prepare a more considered response. 1.3 Officers have now had an opportunity to assess the Environmental Statement in more detail, and have identified a number of issues (particularly in relation to impacts on coastal processes) which require further clarification with the applicants. As such the report proposes that the Select Committee recommend to Cabinet that subject to the Council receiving a satisfactory response from the applicants on a number of issues relating to coastal process impacts and the inclusion of appropriate controls on noise- generating activity (principally pile-driving) during construction, the objection can be withdrawn. 2. Background Project Description 2.1 Mersey Docks and Harbour Company have applied to the Secretary of State for Transport for a Harbour Revision Order (HRO) under Section 14 of the Harbours Act Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 1 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening 1964 to permit construction of a deep-water berth at Seaforth Docks in the Mersey Estuary. Under the Harbour Works (EIA) Regulations 1999 an Environmental Impact Assessment is required for the development and an Environmental Statement (ES) has been prepared by the applicant to accompany the submission of the Harbour Revision Order. The project comprises two phases – the construction of the river berth itself (Phase1) and the deepening of the approach channel (Phase 2). The ES suggests that the development of administration and logistics buildings, maintenance facilities and the like on existing land to the east and north of the River Terminal site will be covered by the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) and will therefore not require separate planning permission. 2.2 The construction of the deep-water berth under Phase 1 will involve the following elements: (1) The construction of a new wall (approximately 750m long) between the south- west corner of Seaforth docks and along the low water edge of an intertidal area known as ‘Seaforth Triangle’. (2) The deepening of an area of the riverbed in front of the proposed terminal (to - 15m below chart datum) to create a 40m wide ‘Berth Pocket’ that will allow Post Panamax vessels to berth in this area. (3) The reclamation of the Seaforth Triangle area behind this new wall (using materials dredged during the Berth Pocket deepening work). 2.3 Two alternative methods have been identified for the construction of the quay wall: these involve either using concrete caissons or a piled steel structure. The construction stage is expected to take a maximum of 2.5 years to complete (depending on the construction method that is employed). It is intended that as much of the site-won dredge arisings as possible will be used as in-fill behind the new wall: only if no other options are available will these materials be discharged to a barge for disposal offshore. 2.4 Within 10 years of the quay wall completion, MDHC also propose to deepen shallower areas (mainly the Formby Bar and Crosby Shoal) in the Outer Estuary navigation channel. This is because average vessel sizes are predicted to increase with time and there will be a need to increase the length of time on each tide (the “tidal window”) that these vessels are able to access the new River Terminal. This is Phase 2 of the project. 2.5 After both Phases 1 and 2, there will be a need for ongoing maintenance dredging work to keep both the Approach Channel and the River Terminal ‘berth pocket’ at their required depths. This maintenance dredging will represent part of the Operational Phase of the proposal along with the day-to-day port-side activities (vessel movements, container handling, HGV movements etc.). Scheme Justification 2.6 The Environmental Statement indicates that the primary driver of this project is the provision of facilities for the berthing and loading/unloading of the latest generation of large ‘Post Panamax’ container vessels. Panamax is the term used to identify those merchant shipping vessels whose dimensions enable them to pass through the Panama 2 Canal, which until 1988 was the constraining factor on vessel size. However, since then, the economies of scale from ‘building big’ has taken priority and the maximum size of container ships has grown two or three-fold: such vessels are known as “Post Panamax” and Port restrictions are now becoming increasingly important as a constraining factor. 2.7 Container cargoes at the Port of Liverpool are currently handled within the enclosed dock system, with access via two river entrances, namely Gladstone and Langton. The larger river entrance, Gladstone, can accommodate Panamax but not “Post-Panamax” vessels, meaning that such vessels are not able to access the impounded dock system. The only facility in the Port able to handle the length and beam of such vessels is the Tranmere Oil Jetty but whilst Tranmere accommodates large vessels on a regular basis, these are oil tankers and the Oil Jetty is unsuitable for container handling. As post-Panamax vessels represent an increasing proportion of international trade, the Port of Liverpool could find its market share restricted and its competitiveness diminished in all key cargo sectors other than oil (i.e. containers, grain, bulk solids) by the inability of the Port to handle vessel sizes greater than Panamax. This will have consequences not just for the Port but also nationally as vessels could by-pass the UK altogether. 2.8 Once completed, the terminal would be a container ‘lift on/lift off’ facility, with the containers being handled by ‘ship-to-shore’ cranes similar to those currently in operation at Royal Seaforth Container Terminal (RSCT). The length of the new quay wall will permit a maximum of three smaller, or two larger, vessels to berth simultaneously. It is anticipated that once the proposed River Terminal is operational, there will be a steady growth in the number of containers handled until equality is reached with the number currently handled at the existing RSCT. In order to maximise port efficiency there will be a reorganisation of other activities within the dock estate in advance of the proposed scheme. 2.9 The Environmental Statement suggests that a number of alternative options have been considered, but none are considered to be viable in terms of achieving the required economic objectives or minimising the environmental effects. For instance, there are no other locations within the Port of Liverpool that can offer the combination of land area, achievable water depth, and proximity to either established road/rail access points and/or the existing container terminal. The technical difficulties associated with widening the existing river entrances and deepening the existing docks, and the disruption that this would cause to the existing business are extreme. It is suggested furthermore that this option would not address the issue of land or berth capacity. A further, practical option would involve reclamation of areas to the north of the Seaforth Container Terminal but it is considered that this would have much larger impact on the environment, residential properties and recreational activities. Further upstream only a limited amount of land is available to the Port that is constrained between the Mersey and the commercial, industrial and residential developments along the A565 corridor. 3. Environmental Impacts identified 3.1 The impacts identified during the Environmental Impact Assessment process are grouped under 29 headings in the ES, and these are set out in Appendix 1 below. A number of the impacts have potential implications for Wirral and these are highlighted in more detail in the Directors Comments. The potential additional effects of this proposal Economic Regeneration and Planning Strategy Select Committee 3 15th November 2005 Consultation on proposed Seaforth River Terminal and Channel Deepening with other proposed land-based or marine-based developments is also considered. No evidence of any significant cumulative effects between these developments and the Seaforth River Terminal proposal are identified. Mitigation and Monitoring Requirements 3.2 The ES recommends that required mitigation/monitoring work, and the associated reporting and information dissemination requirements, be drawn together into a single framework that can be integrated into the proposal. In this respect, the recommended strategy is to draw up a legal agreement or ‘Environmental Management and Monitoring Programme’ (EMMP).