Agenda item

In accordance with Standing Order 21, Cllr M Wade will move the following motion:-

This Council Notes Associated British Ports have been holding public consultation meetings on their plans for their Strategic Land Reserve on Dibden Bay.

Dibden Bay has not been identified in this Council’s Current statutory planning document, the District Local Plan 2016 -2036, as an allocated site for port expansion. However, a decision on whether port operations can be expanded looks to be taken out of our hands on the basis that it is nationally significant.

This Council believes that the likely local impacts to the environmental sites on Dibden Bay along with being so close to our National Park outweigh the potential economic benefits. Notwithstanding this, the decision should be taken by locally elected Councillors.

Therefore Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister accordingly, urging him to give local people, through their local councillors, the final say and in doing so reminding him of his commitment to localism.

Cllr M Clark will second the motion.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 42, the above motion, after being proposed and seconded (without speeches), should stand referred to the body within whose terms of reference the subject matter of the motions comes, or the Cabinet or such Committees or Panels that the Council may determined.

The Chairman may allow the motion to be dealt with at this meeting if they consider it urgent, convenient or conducive to the despatch of business.

The Chairman announced that in accordance with Standing Order 42.2 that he would allow the motion to be dealt with at the meeting, as he considered it to be convenient to the despatch of business.

In accordance with Standing Order 21, Cllr M Wade moved the following motion:

This Council Notes Associated British Ports have been holding public consultation meetings on their plans for their Strategic Land Reserve on Dibden Bay.

Dibden Bay has not been identified in this Council’s Current statutory planning document, the District Local Plan 2016 -2036, as an allocated site for port expansion. However, a decision on whether port operations can be expanded looks to be taken out of our hands on the basis that it is nationally significant.

This Council believes that the likely local impacts to the environmental sites on Dibden Bay along with being so close to our National Park outweigh the potential economic benefits. Notwithstanding this, the decision should be taken by locally elected Councillors.

Therefore Council resolves to write to the Prime Minister accordingly, urging him to give local people, through their local councillors, the final say and in doing so reminding him of his commitment to localism.

Cllr M Wade in presenting the motion, stated that that localism was the bedrock upon which all local government was founded.  Local councillors had been elected by local residents to take decisions on their behalf, they knew the district, their communities and their residents wishes and concerns.  Cllr Wade expressed the view that members of the planning committee, armed with their local knowledge, should be able to balance the considerations against the commercial, environmental as well as national and strategic factors as a regulatory body, to decide what was not only best, but legally appropriate for the area.

Cllr Wade explained the geography around Dibden Bay, that it was sited on the edge of the Waterside peninsular with Southampton Water on the east and the National Park on the west, with one road, the A326 running north to south, to South Waterside.  Reference the environmental importance of the land on or adjacent to Dibden Bay, in that there were areas of formal conservation designation, a triple SSI on the site itself as well the Solent and Southampton Water SPA and RAMSAR site. It was also on the edge of the New Forest National Park Authority, which needed to be protected.

Cllr Wade spoke of the ABP proposal in 2002 for a container port which had been unsuccessful due to the environmental impact.  ABP had since been developing a new proposal for its automotive business and that ABP currently handle over 820,000 vehicles per year.  ABP wanted to expand its business at Dibden Bay to be the largest most important vehicle importer and exporter in Europe.  It was highlighted that the majority of the vehicles would enter or leave the port by road, therefore increasing the traffic along the A326.  Hampshire County Council was proposing a £187 million road improvement project to the A326.  This was a complex project taking 3-4 years to be completed which would have a significant impact to traffic and cause delays to journey times.

Cllr Wade recognised the scale of that the proposal at Dibden Bay and that no district councillors would be involved in the decision.  The motion sought to request that the application be determined by the district council rather than the government, using local knowledge and experience.  Cllr Wade asked members to support the motion.

Cllr Dowd seconded the motion.

Cllr Tipp proposed a number of amendments to the motion.  He explained that local councillors could not make a decision on the proposal due to the legislation, in particular the Planning Act 2008, requiring nationally significant developments to be determined by the Secretary of State.  Cllr Tipp explained that he did not want wish to ask the Minster to change the law, which would be the only way that the decision could be taken locally. 

Cllr Tipp also explained that paragraph 3 of the motion stated that the likely environmental impacts outweigh the potential economic benefits. Given that no environmental assessment had been carried out to date, it was not possible to make a judgement without all the evidence and therefore he proposed that the wording of the motion be amended to reflect this.  Cllr Tipp also proposed a number of other the amendments to the motion, set out below.  These were circulated to all members by email as well as displayed on the screens in the council chamber, as follows:

This Council Notes Associated British Ports haves been holding public consultation meetings on their plans for their Strategic Land Reserve onat Dibden Bay.

Dibden Bay has not been identified in this Council’s Current statutory planning document, the District Local Plan 2016 -2036, as an allocated site for port expansion. However, a decision on whether port operations can be expanded looks to be taken out of our hands on the basis that it is nationally significant.

The Council’s current statutory planning document, the District Local Plan 2016–2036, acknowledges Dibden Bay as ABP’s Strategic Land Reserve but does not allocate the site for port expansion. 

Planning law and our adopted Local Plan make clear that any proposal for port-related development at Dibden Bay would constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act 2008 and therefore be determined by the Secretary of State, not this Council.

This Council believes that the likely local impacts to the on internationally designated environmental sites aton Dibden Bay, combined with its proximity to the along with being so close to our New Forest National Park, must be fully considered in any decision-making process outweigh the potential economic benefits. Notwithstanding this, the decision should be taken by locally elected Councillors.

Therefore, this Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, accordingly, urging himthem to ensure that give local views are given significant weight in the examination process, and people, through their local councillors, the final say and in doing so reminding him them of histheir Government’s stated commitment to localism.

Cllr S Davies seconded the amendments to the motion.

Those who supported the amendment to the motion expressed that view that it allowed local people to be involved in the process and express their views, whilst remaining within the current legislation.  It was felt that the Government should not be asked to change the law and that it was unlikely that any request to make a change would be successful.  It was suggested that the amendment, was achievable, realistic and was the best way to support the local community and the area.

It was felt that the potential environmental impacts were acknowledged within the motion and that the area was recognised as being important and needed to be protected, particularly in relation to wildlife.  Furthermore, it was highlighted that the detail of the application and the potential environmental impacts had not been quantified to date and therefore the amendment should be supported. 

Those who did not support the amendment expressed that view that it supported the economy and local industry at the detriment of the local environment. Concern was expressed that the Secretary of State would not fully consider the views of the local community and that the district council was best placed to consider local views.  Local members would also be able to consider all matters in any future application, including the impact of the development to residents, wildlife, pollution and flooding, for example.

It was felt that the proposed letter, whilst acknowledging that a change in legislation would be required in order for a decision to be taken locally, it was considered to be entirely appropriate and reasonable to ask the Prime Minister to do this.  Members opposing the amendment, felt that it watered down the motion and did not support localism.

Put to the vote, the amendment was carried.

Members went on to debate the substantive motion.

In support of the motion, the view was expressed that the Nationally Significant Infrastructure process for decision making guaranteed that there be local engagement and that the decision would be taken considering the views expressed by local people, the needs to the area and the impact on the environment.  It was therefore felt that the decision being taken by the Secretary of State addressed the concerns raised at the meeting.

In objection to the motion, it was further highlighted that the decision on any future application should be taken locally and that the motion had been weakened with the amendments.  It was also highlighted by a councillor, that the motion had been brought forward having listened to the view of local residents.  They had been concerned regarding the degradation of land at Dibden Bay and that there was no clear record on the state of the land at the current time.  They were also concerned that their views would not be considered fully if the decision were taken by the government. 

RESOLVED:

That the following motion be supported:

This Council Notes Associated British Ports has been holding public consultation meetings on their plans for their Strategic Land Reserve at Dibden Bay.

The Council’s current statutory planning document, the District Local Plan 2016–2036, acknowledges Dibden Bay as ABP’s Strategic Land Reserve but does not allocate the site for port expansion. 

Planning law and our adopted Local Plan make clear that any proposal for port-related development at Dibden Bay would constitute a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act 2008 and therefore be determined by the Secretary of State, not this Council.

This Council believes that the likely local impacts on internationally designated environmental sites at Dibden Bay, combined with its proximity to the New Forest National Park, must be fully considered in any decision-making process.

Therefore, this Council resolves to write to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, urging them to ensure that local views are given significant weight in the examination process, and reminding them of their Government’s stated commitment to localism.