Dibden Terminal Flashcards Preview

EIA > Dibden Terminal > Flashcards

Flashcards in Dibden Terminal Deck (30):
1

Proposal

1.8km deep water quay
connect to existing deep water navigation channel
-container transfer, storage, distribution and ass port infra ~202 hectares

1.3 km double track railway proposed terminal with Fawley branch

10m wide access road ~1.4 km long terminal-A326 (new junction)

improve road and rail network (separate application

2

Contents required

Harbour revision order SoS (transport)

dredging and ocatal navigation licences UKDEFRA

statutory advice from Gov agencies incl Natural England, EA

planning permission LPA

licences and permissions required a full environmental impact ass Appropriate under habitat directive

3

Scope of EIA

employment,
traffic and transport,
ecology and nature conservation,
the marine environment,
navigation,
landscape and visual amenity,
lighting,
noise and vibration,
air quality,
agriculture,
archaeology and cultural heritage,
recreation and tourism,
freshwater and drainage,
ground quality and contamination,
services.

4

Site and surroundings

dibden reclaim- created by deposits and dredging from river test and soton water (1940-1980)

flat, poor quality pasture (grazed under short term licence)

W- fawley branch railway line then A326
nearest footpath runs along western edge

River test joins river itchen form southampton water . Broad entry 10km and 2.5 km wide (widest point)

internationally important commercial waterway.

estuary- support human commercial, envt and recreational activities and resources

former shoreline marks boundary new forest heritage area

govt policy - planning purposed= should be treated as status of national park

bibden reclaim bought in 1967, whilst reclamation was in progress- nationalised British Docks Board strategic reserve for future needs of the port of soton

5

Primary use:

import, export and distribute unitised freight in containers

import of aggregates

roll-on/roll-off (roro) cargo

lift-on/light-off (lolo)

185 ha inc planting, landscaping, nature conservation enhancements and agri

6

Principle land uses within terminal

~1.8 km of quay providing 6 deepwater berths, cranes, storage areas, railway yards, offices parking and landscaping

7

The need for development

UK ports handel 95% of the Uks trade by volume (75% by value)

projected increase in containerised trade

Bigger ships anticipated

southampton seeking to maintain hub port status (capitalise on geographical advantages and multimodal transport)

southtmaptons economy is dependent on the port 6% (volume) of Uk trade passes through it

8

Alternatives

increase existing capacity- deciding change of use, efficiency

extend exsiting docks- little space or scope of reclamation

develop elsewhere- none viable reclamation and transport links needed

do nothing

9

Dibden Update

6 editions delivered to 100000 homes (may 1997-may2000)

dibden forum established- invite stakeholders (national and local government, NGOs, businesses, resident groups, single interest groups) seven meetings plus site visits.

5 local public exhibitions (1998) attended by 2500 visitors, comment sheets collected (366)

10

Limits to the area

The site
transport links
the estuary
region

11

Employment

1100 people over 9 years of phased construction

1700 jobs in new facilities or with supporting industry (1% of Soton/ winchester area labour force)

unemployment high locally

worth £20 million a year to the local economy

12

Traffic and transport

Terminal will Handel ~1.4 million containers per annum.
-30% of which expected to be transhipment traffic (arrive on ship leave on ship)

remaining 70% will require land transport
65% (road)
35%(rail)

70% employees expected to travel to work by car

4700 trips per day, 67% expected to be heavy goods (+48 trains per train)

13

Trasnport stratergy

Park and ride
ferry connection to southampton
cycle ways
road and rail improvements

(no material impacts on local road networks anticipated after improvements, some benefits for sustainable transport)

14

Protected areas

New forsest/SSSI
Ramsar/SPA/SSSI
SAC
SINC
(ecological system is v large, wading birds is southampton water, SPA and greater solent)

appropriate assessment under the habitats directive was required

15

Phase 1 (Habitat Survey) key findings

importance species and habitats
unimproved species rich grassland
grazing marsh and richer areas
broad-leaved woodland
scrub
other small elements

16

Solent wetlands

Ancient mixed saltmarshed and mudflats: relict of much greater system, still declining rapid erosion at hither near by

17

Birds

1100 wintering waterfowl in the solent some breeding birds on the reclaimed land (i.e. redshank)
ABP took functional approach to solent ecosystem for wading birds

18

Plants

155 spp on teh site
1 nationally rare
5 nationally scarce species

19

Impacts

loss of Debden foreshore (part of Ramsar/SPA?SSSI)
birds likely to be accommodated within the SPA w/p further displacement to the greater solent

plants some nationally rare species on the reclaimed site

230 ha of the site designated SSSI in sept 2001

reclaim was incl in proposed national park boundary

20

ecological mitigation

Dibden tidal creek 32ha interidal to MLW (habitat for wildfowl)

todal recharge at hythe 22ha to MLW gain salt marsh habitat, plus stabilisation

Church farm nature conservation area

137ha Wetland/ wey meadow complex, incl redeemed lagoon, organic low inout farm, landscaping to screen the terminal

21

Marine Environmetn

dedging of the re dock frontage and channel likely to have most effects
effect migratory fish will be minmised by monitoring suspended sediment level during dredging- if thresholds exceed dredging will be suspended

calm beds will be restocked after construction and bait creation at hythe

22

cumulative effects (marine)

total direct loss of intertidal habitat- 7 ha (maj of which is within soton water, 1 ha within designated sites)

capital dredging ~100000 m3 will be required- reduce tidal prism and increase maintenance dredging

reduction in tidal range v small--> 0.1% mean tidal range- minimal affect on intertidal area

increased deposition as a result of capital dredging will lead to v small increase in maintenance dredging of ~0.2%

negligible combined chanege on water qualtiy.

23

landsacpe and visual

construction and operation investigated and day.night

limited adverse effects on views i.e. from New forest

significant effects from southampton but in character 'vibrant views of international shipping that are not out of place in a port city"

24

Lighting

24 hour operation
design

design s to minimise pollution

landscape and nature conservation proposal, including the creek will be dark areas at night time

generally it will add to existing light pollution

from a few individual locations close to the operational area there will be substantially adverse impact (residential houses, gold course)

ie marchwood

25

Noise and vibration

most impacts of minor significance
noise from piling during contraction will be significant when the 1200m of hither marina (phase 3 of development

mitigation measures incl reconstruction of hither marina Bund shrouding of the polling activity, the insulation of noise barriers

26

Air quality

no sig effects beyond the sire and mostly during construction

changes to air quality due to pollution from ships and other traffic is unlikely to exceed national air quality objectives when the terminal is fully operational

27

Agricultire

no significant effects
some loss of rough grazing
some enhancement through ecological mitigation

28

Archaelolgy and cultural heritage

minor-moderate adverse effects on the known archaeological heritage- that impact reduction measures will produce a sustainable and in come cases beneficial outcome

some elements of archaeological heritage may be discovered during construction
Written scheme of investigation will be agreed-- with hampshire county council and English heritage- could trigger additional fieldwork

29

Few significant impacts

navigation
agriculture
recreation and tourism
freshwater and drainage
ground quality and contamination
services

30

Planning Permission?

NO

The ecological assessment of this proposal was immense and the impacts were likely to be very significant
The mitigation proposed was ground-breaking & would have been well-funded
There are no new proposals to deal with the loss of saltmarsh at Hythe
Was the decision influenced by strategic thinking, albeit rather late?