Extracts from Mr Hurley's report...

On the environment:

There seems to me to be a high risk that significant quantities of suspended sediment would be taken into Southampton Water or washed on to the adjacent saltmarsh. Either of these outcomes could have serious ecological consequences.

There is little doubt that the concentration of suspended sediment in parts of Southampton Water could be increased as a result of the proposed dredging and recharge works, with a consequent reduction in the availability of dissolved oxygen. These effects could pose a significant risk to migrating salmon.

ABP argue that, with the exception of wigeon, waterfowl displaced as a result of the Dibden Terminal development would be accommodated on alternative sites in Southampton Water.

This conclusion is founded on the assumption that, taken together, Dibden Creek and the Hythe to Cadland recharge would be able to accommodate more than 2,700 of the displaced birds. I consider this to be unlikely. It also assumes that displaced birds would be able to use sites elsewhere in Southampton Water, provided that the mean density of occupation remains below the existing mean peak density. I am not convinced that such an assumption is warranted. The fact that a site is able to support occasional peak use at a given density does not imply that it will have the resources needed to sustain an increase in bird numbers up to that density over a longer period.

Economy:

ABP and Southampton City Council both suggest that failure to develop Dibden Terminal could also impact more generally on the commercial success of the port. In relation to these matters, I accept that not proceeding with Dibden Terminal could damage the image of the Port of Southampton and that this might reduce its attractiveness to shippers. Because of the shortage of space in the present port, its ability to grow would be very limited. Container traffic that might otherwise be captured by Southampton would be lost to the port, as would ro-ro traffic. A proportion of the traffic might even be lost to the UK, if adequate suitable capacity is not available elsewhere. This outcome would clearly be undesirable.

However, I do not see that the effect is likely to be more than marginal, except with respect to the port's container and ro-ro trades.

It is common ground between ABP and the County, District and City Councils that Dibden Terminal would bring demonstrable economic benefits. Whilst there were minor differences in the approach, it was agreed that around 2,000 full-time equivalent jobs would be created with the Terminal fully operational; and around 10,000 person years of employment during construction.

Whilst I accept that most vacancies at Dibden would probably not be filled directly by those currently unemployed, the additional employment that would be generated by Dibden Terminal is universally welcomed as beneficial to the local economy by the local authorities involved

Visual impact:

Balloons flown on the line of the main quay of the proposed Dibden Terminal to simulate the height of the proposed quayside cranes were visible across a wide area. They could be seen from Bolton's Bench at Lyndhurst, some 10km to the west. They were more readily apparent from Yew Tree Heath in the New Forest, across a distance of about 5km. And they were conspicuous from points in the Hythe and Marchwood area, including the Dibden Golf Course and parts of the built-up areas.

I attach particular weight to the impact that the quayside cranes would have on the character and appearance of parts of the Hythe Conservation Area. For instance, when seen from Hythe Promenade, they would appear to rise from the rooftops of the houses in Hythe Marina Village. The visual effect would be both unattractive and incongruous.

The sky-glow associated with the Terminal would be seen against the backdrop of the existing sky-glow above the City of Southampton. Nevertheless, part of the night sky visible from the New Forest would probably be appreciably brighter as a result of the Dibden Terminal development. It seems to me that these factors would detract from the rural quality of the New Forest Heritage Area.

Conclusions:

I consider that the proposed expansion of the Port of Southampton would serve a number of important public interests. This is a successful port, which makes a substantial contribution to the economic life of our country. As a result of the continuing growth in its business, it is now approaching its capacity, particularly in terms of handling containers. Unless the Port of Southampton expands substantially, it will be unable to meet the demands of its customers, and its contribution to the continuing growth of the national economy will be curtailed.

The Dibden Terminal provides the only realistic means of achieving a substantial increase in Southampton's container handling capacity.

The Dibden Terminal would also stimulate the local economy.

On the other hand there is no doubt in my mind that the Dibden Terminal would do substantial environmental damage. This includes the effect on local communities. The development would undoubtedly have an adverse effect on the amenity of local people, particularly as a result of noise disturbance, visual impact and delay at level crossings. These effects may not be sufficient to be determinative, but they must weigh in the balance against the proposed development.

I attach greater significance to the damage that would be done to the character and appearance of the New Forest Heritage Area. This area has a landscape of acknowledged national importance, which is subject to the highest level of protection.

I recognise that ABP have been at pains to minimise the harm that their proposed development would do to that landscape. Nevertheless, the Dibden project would have an urbanising effect and its impact would be apparent across a wide area.

I consider that the most significant harm arising from the Dibden Terminal development would be to nature conservation interests.

In my view, it is doubtful whether local advantages in terms of benefits to the Port of Southampton and the local economy amount to imperative matters of public interest that should override the protection of habitat to which the UK is committed by international agreement and international law.

I accept that that unless substantial new port development takes place in the South East, the UK will have insufficient container handling capacity to handle its foreign trade. I have already acknowledged that the problem is likely to start to bite in about 2006; and that by 2015, the shortfall would be of the order of 3km of deep-water container quay.

There are three other schemes for deep-water container Terminals in the South East, which are currently being promoted by established port operators.

My conclusion on the first issue is therefore that the Dibden Terminal would not serve a public interest that is of such importance as to outweigh the adverse impacts of the proposed development. However, this conclusion is based on a finely balanced judgement. I recognise that others might well reach a different conclusion on the same evidence. I also recognise that a different conclusion might well be drawn if the proposed London Gateway, Bathside Bay or Landguard container terminal developments fail to materialise.