Access to ports

Ports are essential to the economic wellbeing of the UK. Some 95% of UK cargo movements by tonnage is waterborne and ports collectively employ some 117,000 people.

Ports large and small are affected by the quality of transport links to their hinterlands, whether that be by road, rail, inland waterways or coastal shipping. Constraints on road and rail networks in particular can limit the size of a port and its economic impact. In this report we examine Government policy on improving access to ports.

Local bottlenecks are of key concern to many ports. Local government structures and funding arrangements for local major transport projects have changed significantly in recent years and continue to evolve. Ports told us that the new arrangements were complex and might not prioritise projects of strategic importance. We recommend that the Department for Transport (DfT) act as an advocate for ports, helping the sector navigate complex arrangements for getting transport improvement schemes off the ground. The department should also be prepared to challenge decisions by local bodies where they fail to prioritise improvements in port access over other, less strategically important, schemes.

Government policy on who should pay for transport infrastructure relating to ports is clear in principle but confused in practice and conceptually flawed. Port operators are expected to pay for measures required to mitigate increased traffic due to port expansion. Guidance exists on when the Government should contribute to traffic measures which have wider benefits, but it has never been used. However, whereas some ports have contributed towards transport schemes to improve access, others have not. The rationale for the differing treatment of different projects is not clear. Moreover, the principle that ports are likely to be the sole beneficiaries of transport schemes which make access easier overlooks the wider economic benefits of expanding trade and reducing logistics costs that are likely to arise from improved access. In our view, there should be a presumption that significant improvements to access to ports - particularly improvements to strategic networks - will be publicly funded, because of the wider economic benefits of doing so. However, this should not preclude ports from contributing to local transport infrastructure improvements, following discussions with relevant local bodies. Simplified, new guidance should be based on these principles.

We commend the department for bringing forward a new high-level strategy on ports, which encompasses the issues raised in our report. We would like to see more details of how the strategy will be implemented. In our view, prioritising the removal of constraints to port development caused by inadequate transport infrastructure should be at the heart of Government strategy on ports.

We also recommend that DfT:

 give a view on whether or not port master plans have had any impact and point to some good examples of these plans and of how they have influenced decision makers;  devise a more effective successor to the Waterborne Freight Grant, to stimulate coastal shipping; and 4  clarify whether or not it intends to bring forward a National Policy Statement on National Networks and, if so, its timetable for doing so.

Our impression is that the DfT could do more to promote ports’ interests within Government and internationally. We were particularly concerned to hear suggestions that UK ports were put at a competitive disadvantage when compared to foreign ports because the UK Government insists that ports pay for infrastructure that is paid for by national and local governments overseas. If the Government does apply European Commission state aid rules in this area more strictly than other EU countries it should explain why it does so.

Finally, we were struck by the concerns raised with us about the complexity of the planning system. We recommend that the DfT tell us what it consider to be the appropriate balance between environmental protection and economic development in relation to ports; in what ways the Government has altered this balance since it came to power in 2010; and what work it is involved in to address complexities or regulatory barriers within the planning system which ports regard as detrimental to their interests.