Wildlife and conservation review 2002
their scheme will have, and have developed a habitat compensation scheme which they will deliver
if the Secretary of State grants consent. It is important to note that in this case, and others, the
availability of appropriate compensation measures cannot be used as a factor in favour of the
development: permission may be granted only if the Secretary of State can determine there are
imperative reasons of overriding public importance whereby the development should be permitted,
and that there are no alternatives. The compensation scheme for Bathside Bay would comprise a
managed realignment of some 130ha adjacent to the nearby Hamford Water, the attributes of the
new site in terms of habitats, disturbance levels and position in the estuarine frame being matched
as closely as possible to the lost site. A Public Inquiry into all aspects of the Bathside Bay proposal
is due to commence in early 2004.
All three big schemes include proposals to recreate lost habitat as compensation. That is one reason
why conservation bodies object to the plans - conservation in situ is always to be preferred. However,
it is recognised in law that there may be circumstances where national interests should override
even Europ can-level protection, and the requirement to compensate under such circumstances,
provided the decision is taken correctly, is to be welcomed. We believe, from earlier experience (eg
Northey Island, Orplands, Tollesbury, now Trimley and Abbotts Hall) that managed realignment,
the main method of compensation proposed in these schemes, can work, although a recent report
by BTO casts some doubt on the ability of replacement sites to function in the longer term as
effectively for birds as virgin sites.
In the past, thinking regarding compensation was not so well developed. When Fagbury Flats on
the Orwell was destroyed by the 1980s expansion of Felixstowe, a 'compensation' site was provided,
but it was no such thing. Trimley Marshes is, with hindsight, a good coastal, non-tidal reserve (and
has recently been given protection as SSSI and SPA), but it docs not and never will provide
compensatory habitat for those open shore birds displaced by the dock extension. And when Lappel
Bank on the Medway was similarly trashed a few years later, no compensation was provided -
illegally as ascertained by a court case. At last, in early 2003, plans were announced to provide
genuine habitat replacement for these two schemes, through a Defra-funded plan to undertake
managed realignment on the Dengie coast at Weymarks. It is not ideal - it is several tens of kilometres
from either site of damage, and at least 15 years too late, but it is better than nothing. If this goes
ahead, it will be the largest realignment to date, but unfortunately the proposal has met with very
considerable local opposition, and alternative proposals are now being considered. However, it is
amazing to view the progress which is being made towards achieving sustainable coastline
management through adopting the approach of working with nature rather than against it on dynamic
coastlines. And it all began here in Essex around 1990. Now it is part of Government policy, and
has been undertaken (eg Freiston Shore, on the Wash) or is being considered (eg at Alkborough on
the Humber, and in Cuckmere Haven, Sussex) at appropriate sites throughout England. Where
Essex leads the rest will follow...and it seems likely that at least the first few decades of the new
Millennium will be characterised by a significant, necessary and welcome reshaping of our coastline
nationwide.
The 'big three' port schemes come hard on the heels of Trinity 3B, consented in 2002 - an extension
of Felixstowe Dock up to its Parliamentary limit; the impacts of this, over and above those past
impacts of the whole dock, were predicted to be relatively minor and addressed through mitigation.
And in the pipeline now is a proposal to redevelop the former P&O berths at Felixstowe for container
vessels; this too has relatively few environmental impacts. The latter scheme can and should be
seen as making best use of existing infrastructure, and therefore is to be welcomed, as demonstration
of adherence to first plank of national port policy. That is the way forward.
34
Essex Naturalist (New Series) 20 (2003)