Written evidence from the British Ports
Association (BPA) (TE 60)
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
- Economic health is closely tied to investment
in the right transport infrastructure.
- Transport investment could be re-focussed on
a range of smaller network improvements to reduce delays and congestion.
- The planning regime nationally, regionally and
locally is going through a period of change and uncertainty.
The British Ports Association (BPA) represents a
broad cross section of ports operating in diverse markets. UK
ports handled 508m tonnes of cargo in 2009, maintaining the UK's
position as the largest port sector in the EU. The reliance of
the UK economy on the trade represented by these figures is self
evident. In turn, port efficiency substantially depends on the
adequacy of their links to the transport network.
The Committee's inquiry therefore is a matter of
strong interest to the industry and decisions likely to be taken
in the short and medium term on investment in the transport system
will have a significant impact on ports.
1. Have the UK's economic conditions materially
changed since the Eddington Transport Study and, if so, does this
affect the relationship between transport spending and UK economic
growth?
Clearly the UK's economic condition has changed since
the 2006 Eddington Transport Study but it is a matter of speculation
whether this represents a material long term change to demand.
The DfT's own forecasts for port traffic, readjusted to take
account of the recession, and published in the draft National
Policy Statement for Ports, show significant long term growth
for unitized traffic.
Although economic conditions may have changed, ports
and indeed the transport network still need to be part of a long
term planning and investment programme on the basis that economic
cycles will not affect the relationship between transport spending
and UK economic growth. Good transport infrastructure improves
business productivity, improves the efficiency of the labour market
and reduces costs to the final consumer. It has a significant
regeneration role as investment in the right infrastructure can
have major regional and local impacts by providing improved market
access. Transport growth is closely tied therefore to economic
growth and should not be treated in isolation form its beneficial
impacts.
We are concerned that the Coalition Government's
programme in its transport section (para 30) makes no mention
of either freight or maritime. The concentration is on passenger
schemes such as Crossrail and high speed rail. Bearing in mind
the strong likelihood of significant cuts, this will not achieve
a proper balance between freight and passengers or indeed between
rail and road. Although we accept that rail will always be part
of a decarbonisation agenda, two-thirds of goods still leave and
enter ports by road and the generally anti-road policies of successive
governments have been short sighted. We hope that one of the
Committee's conclusions from this inquiry is that a much stronger
emphasis can be placed on a broad based government transport policy
which looks at not only personal mobility, but at the role of
freight and efficient freight distribution.
2. What type of transport spending should
be prioritised, in the context of an overall spending reduction,
in order best to support regional and national economic growth?
Assuming an overall transport spending reduction,
this could create the opportunity to focus on a larger number
of smaller schemes which can improve connectivity where there
are growing problems of delay and congestion. The strong view
we have from many BPA members is that it is the final legs of
journeys which suffer from lack of investment. Solutions can
involve not only new links connecting to both road and rail networks,
but also IT solutions such as better information to hauliers about
onward travel options, better information about motorway access
and a more managed approach to traffic flows, all under the umbrella
of "smart" solutions.
One of the conclusions of the Eddington study was
that the UK has a mature and strong basic transport network and
government should resist the temptation to pool resources into
"prestige" schemes. It should deploy resources more
widely, tackling broader issues of transport integration. The
Eddington Report described ports as the "key gateways for
UK trade in goods" and identified strong cost benefit ratios
for investment in surface access to ports of anywhere between
three and 15, indicating strong GDP benefits. At a time of likely
exceptional public spending constraints, we would encourage the
government to give full recognition to these figures.
Notwithstanding these comments, Strategic National
Corridors cannot be ignored and will require maintenance and improvement.
We welcome, for example, the recent decision to identify the
A1 north of Newcastle as a route of strategic national importance,
although we note that even so, this "will not guarantee funding
for major improvements". The government will also be responding
soon to the EU Commission's consultation on the Trans European
Network (TEN-T). This will also identify priority UK routes,
but again with only a remote prospect of funding.
The Committee should also note that in comparison
with other EU member states, the UK has a system of developer
contributions for road and rail developments which we believe
is unique to the UK. This means that under a process devised
by the Department for Transport, ports are required to fund infrastructure
which in other member states would be the entire responsibility
of the government.
3. Are the current methods for assessing proposed
transport schemes satisfactory?
The appraisal system itself, as set out in the Transport
Analysis and New Approach to Appraisal document, is complex but
nevertheless reasonably balanced. The challenge we currently
face is the uncertainty surrounding the planning regime generally.
For example, the government has decided to abolish the Infrastructure
Planning Commission and replace it with a Major Infrastructure
Planning Unit. The IPC was of course only set up in 2009. It
is also the case that national policy statements dealing with
ports, road and rail have either yet to appear or yet to be designated.
There is considerable uncertainty about the future of these statements
beyond the fact that they will in future be subject to ratification
by Parliament. For the very largest transport projects at the
moment, therefore, plans would be submitted to an organization
that is about to be wound up and against national policies that
have yet to be decided.
We have no strong views on which institutions might
deliver a more efficient planning system, but we are firmly of
the view that the delays and uncertainty associated with the previous
system need to be tackled. Similar uncertainty surrounds local
authority schemes. We note from the Minister for Regional and
Local Transport's recent statement that local authorities should
not assume that the previous government's funding allocations
would be funded to the published levels and that the Major Schemes
Guidance for local authorities is suspended. This also means
that public inquiries on schemes requiring DfT funding are postponed
and decisions will be taken in the light of the spending review
to be announced in October.
We would add to this the recent setting up of the
Marine Management Organisation (MMO) which will deal with port
development applications below the IPC threshold, which will be
the great majority. The MMO will need time to build up expertise
and resources. Planning for all types of schemes, therefore,
is going through a period of major change. The extent to which
the new planning system is able to deliver real improvements will
have a major influence on the transport network.
4. How will schemes be planned in the absence
of regional bodies and following the revocation and abolition
of regional spatial strategies?
Considerable effort was put into agreeing regional
spatial strategies and ports played an active part in their production.
The creation of Local Enterprise Partnerships, and the greater
emphasis on local authorities may have advantages, and we are
monitoring their progress and their grip on transport and economic
issues closely. We are concerned that individually, LEPs will
simply not have the critical mass to make a contribution to transport
planning that can take into account connectivity to the regional
and national network; the extent to which they might pool resources
is untested. This change added to the very significant changes
to the planning system at a national level will continue to create
uncertainty.
September 2010
| 
