Member Article

Associated British Ports in an attempt to "block" Humber's Able Marine Park

Claims from Associated British Ports that it does not oppose the creation of the multi-million pound Able Marine Energy Park (AMEP) on the South Bank of the Humber have today been described as “entirely misleading.”

They have been described as and attempt to disguise a blatant attempt to block a project which, as well as creating over 4,000 direct jobs, is set to transform the economy of the whole area.

That was the reaction of Able Group Development Director, Neil Etherington, following the strong objections voiced by North Lincolnshire Council to ABP’s application to develop a small area of land that is crucial to the development of the Marine Energy Park.

The crucial importance of AMEP moving ahead as quickly as possible has been further emphasised with the Government announcement of funding of up to £14.9million to speed up key infrastructure works at AMEP, last week’s announcement regarding the success of the Humber University Technical College and the acceptance by the Planning Inspectorate of the Highways Agency’s application for the A160 improvements.

In response to the Council’s objection ABP has claimed: “Our plans would not prevent Able UK from proceeding with their plans for the Marine Energy Park.

“ABP does not oppose the principle of the development of the Able Marine Energy Park. In a slightly altered form both Able UK’s plans and ABP’s plans could proceed alongside each other…’

Said Mr Etherington “No-one should be under any doubt, if ABP chooses to seek to use either Special Parliamentary Procedure, which ironically no longer apply to any similar applications made after October 2012, or other legal devices, any delay, will threaten the prospect of AMEP going ahead.

“If ABP’s application was actually approved it would certainly mean that all the efforts we—and many others—have put in over many years to bring AMEP to fruition would come to nothing.

“The relatively small area of land which ABP now wants to develop is crucial to the development of AMEP—without it the scheme would fall.

“That has been made clear throughout the planning process and was clearly understood by both the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State for Transport in their decisions to approve the application.

“ABP now claim that they do not oppose the principle of AMEP—it has to be said that is very different from the approach they adopted throughout the entire four and half year planning process.

“They suggest that there could be some form of ‘alteration/compromise’ to our scheme. Again, that is entirely misleading and completely ignores the realities of the planning process.

“ABP has made a bizarre request to shorten the AMEP quay by 515m (a reduction of 40%) with a loss of 46 acres of new quay area and in return they would not object to the permission.

“This is despite the fact that Secretary of State acknowledges the demand for the facility, the ‘imperative reasons of overriding public interest’ that justify the development and, of course, the very fact that the full Environmental Statement is inextricably linked to the original design.

“Seeking any major modification of this kind would effectively mean having to restart the planning procedures all over again—that would mean a delay of as much as a further four years or so by which time the need and opportunity of the AMEP development—and the Humber—would be lost.

“Furthermore, in their own application ABP have not reviewed any impacts that their development would have on AMEP and conclude that, in any event, only one out of the two projects could progress.

“One has to ask the question why ABP moved to put forward this application at this particular time?

“The land in question has been zoned for industrial use since 1955 and in the ownership of ABP and its predecessor, the British Transport Docks Board, since 1967 without any plans for development until suddenly, in the midst of the examination of the AMEP plans, they came forward with a proposal for the so-called Immingham Western Deepwater Jetty…a proposal which ABP themselves admitted had been ‘hurried through’ for the hearings into the AMEP development.

“ABP have acknowledged that in fact this Jetty would only be needed if they ever decided go ahead with the so-called HIT 3 (Humber International Terminal 3) project for which there is no current planning application or existing permission. If it ever did go ahead the Jetty might create 50 jobs (although the original scoping document only referred to 20) - that’s compared to the 4,100 direct jobs, which will be created by AMEP.

“In his own summary the Secretary of State concluded that ‘it is not certain that the Immingham Western Deepwater Jetty will proceed or that it must occupy the triangle site’ and in his decision clearly concluded that there were imperative reasons of overriding public interest in support of the ‘major significance’ of the AMEP development.

“The need for moving ahead as quickly as possible was underlined by the Chair of the Humber LEP Lord Haskins when, in response to the announcement of the EZ infrastructure funding, he stressed that it would help works get off the ground, bringing forward hundreds of construction jobs and giving more confidence for investors.

“He again made clear that AMEP is ‘a critical part of our plans for growing the Humber as the UK’s energy estuary.’

“From our point of view we have never criticised or sought to challenge ABP’s proposed Green Port Hull development and we have also fully cooperated in relation to their plans for rail facilities to the South of AMEP.

“It is for others to judge—and for ABP to defend—their decision to continue promoting their application in the full knowledge that its action could jeopardise not just AMEP but the entire once in a lifetime opportunity to make the Humber a world-class centre for the renewable energy secto

This was posted in Bdaily's Members' News section by Clare Burnett .