dover harbour useful info

7/28/2019 Dover Harbour Useful Info

1/48

Halcrow Group LimitedBurderop Park Swindon Wiltshire SN4 0QD

Tel +44 (0)1793 812479 Fax +44 (0)1793 812089

www.halcrow.com

Halcrow Group Limited has prepared this report in accordance with

the instructions of their client, Dover Harbour Board, for their soleand specific use. Any other persons who use any information

contained herein do so at their own risk.

Halcrow Group Limited 2009

Dover Harbour Board

Port of Dover 30 Year Master Plan

Zoning Report

July 2005

Halcrow


2/48

Dover Harbour Board

Port of Dover 30 Year Master Plan

Zoning Report

July 2005

Contents Amendment RecordThis report has been issued and amended as follows:

Issue Revision Description Date Signed

1 0 Draft 11.05.05 MBM

1 1 DHB comments - Revised 17.06.05 MBM

2 0 Redraft 29.06.05 RJC

2 1 DHB comments 04.07.05 RJC

2

2

DHB comments 2

08.07.05

RJC

2 3 DHB comments 3 29.07.05 RJC

2 4 DHB comments 4 18.11.05 RJC


3/48

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Contents

1 Introduction 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 The Issues 2

1.3 Objectives 2

2 Trade Forecasts 4

2.1 General 42.2 Freight Traffic 4

2.3 Car Traffic 5

2.4 Coaches 5

2.5 Fresh Produce (Fruit) 5

2.6 Aggregates 5

2.7 Cruise Liners 5

2.8 Trade Summary 6

2.9 Traffic Growth Beyond 2034 6

3 Eastern Docks Capacity Studies 73.1 General 7

3.2 The Need for a Robust System 8

3.3 Harbour and Marine Capacity 8

3.4 Berth Capacity 9

3.5 Internal and External Access Capacity of Eastern Docks 10

3.6 Overall Capacity Conclusions 11

4 The Environment of Dover Harbour 13

4.1 Introduction 13

4.2 Constraints 134.3 Opportunities 16

5 Development Options 18

5.1 Approach 18

5.2 Exclusion of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Options 18

5.3 Choice of Zoning Report Development Options 19

5.4 Zoning Report Development Options 20

5.5 Phasing of Zoning Report Development Options 28


4/48


6 Planning Structure 306.1 Introduction 30

6.2 Assessment Criteria 32

6.3 Outline Economic Impact 36

6.4 Planning Findings 38

7 Conclusions 39

8 Zoning Plan 41

8.1 General 41

8.2 Ferry Trade 418.3 Other Trades 43

8.4 Summary 44

Figures

Appendix A Preferred Option Sketches

Appendix B Preferred Option Descriptions Table

Appendix C Phasing of Preferred Options


5/48

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005 1

1 Introduction

1.1 GeneralDover is the busiest ferry port in the world and provides a vital link

between the UK road network and the rest of continental Europe. The

port is administered by Dover Harbour Board (DHB) as a Trust Port.

The remit of the port is therefore to operate on a commercial basis to

best serve the interests of the United Kingdom, the surrounding

communities and the users of the port.

In 2003, the DHB decided to draw up a 30 Year Master Plan for the Port.

This master plan was required to set out the pattern of development for

the port so that it could address changes in traffic, continue to contributeto the local economy and minimise the negative impacts on the town of

Dover.

The master plan is being developed using a staged approach. Phase 1 in

2003 included traffic forecasts and assessments of the existing and

potential port capacities. It indicated how each trade sector could develop.

Phase 2 began in 2004 and involved preparing an incremental

development plan, focused on maximising use of the existing harbour

(both Eastern and Western Docks). It analysed investment return and

prioritised conflicting options.

Halcrow is the Engineering Consultant for Phase 2 of the Master Plan,

whilst High Point Rendel (HPR) is the Financial Consultant. Phase 2

includes the following stages, of which we are currently at Stage 3 :

Phase 2 Stage 1 : review port traffic forecasts, outline

development options based on prioritisation of trade;

Phase 2 Stage 2 : undertake capacity study of Eastern Docks,

refine development options based on port trade growthrequirements.

Phase 2 Stage 3 : consultation and further development of

feasible options to create a zoning plan covering both the Eastern

and the Western Docks

Phase 2 Final Report Stage : following further public

consultation.

This report sets out the likely development of the port as the basis forpublic consultation.


6/48


1.2 The IssuesDover Harbour has always been the historic gateway between the UK and

the Continent and also close to the major shipping lanes into the North

Sea. 80% of trade is ferry related. Operators include P&O, SeaFrance,

Norfolk Line, SpeedFerries and Hoverspeed.

The port has also diversified to include cruise facilities (two berths), a

cargo terminal with temperature controlled storage, an aggregate facility

and the yacht marina. On land are a shopping complex, hotel

development, property and a business park.

The area of land and water in which the port operates is restricted. Ferry

operations are concentrated in the Eastern Docks (shown in Figure 1.1).

While all is running smoothly, the existing port is able to handle the

present levels of traffic without difficulty. The system is complex and any

disruption due to bad weather, breakdowns, labour disputes, political

demonstrations or security issues very quickly clogs the local roads with

traffic. This causes frustration for the port users and disrupts the lives of

the towns residents.

The challenge is to see how the port can handle increasing traffic while

reducing the incidence of these traffic problems. This has to be done

while dealing with ever increasing security and without compromising the

very high safety standards that the port applies.

1.3 ObjectivesThe overall objective is to provide DHB with the foundation for a

workable business plan for the port for the next 30 years, including

recommendations to maximise the commercial and economic potential of

the port and its assets.

The Master Plan will pay particular attention to the following aspects :

Reliable traffic/trade forecasts for ferry, cargo, cruise and marina;

The optimum use of the berthing facilities available;

Take account of cargo terminal capacity, manoeuvring capacity,

internal and external access capacity;

Identify impacts of government policy and environmental

constraints;

Define capacity in each area of port operation;


7/48


Maximise the commercial and economic potential of the port,

including redevelopment and alternative uses for some or all

areas;

Look carefully at the relationship between the port estate and the

rest of Dover;

Identify the preferred way forward for the Port of Dover.

The master plan will include actions to be taken to improve the

infrastructure and modes of operation, to achieve the vision. The master

plan will not be a static document since it will be subject to regular review

and updating.

Figure 1.1 Port of Dover Layout

N

Southern Breakwater

Admiralty Pier

Eastern Docks

Western Docks

Eastern EntranceWesternEntrance


8/48


2 Trade Forecasts

2.1 GeneralIn Phase 1 of the master plan, a set of trade forecasts for the port was

developed which was further reviewed in Phase 2.

Trade forecasts for a port are based on a series of assumptions, taking in

the rate of economic growth of the nation, the pattern of trade, changes

in government regulations, the behaviour of shipping lines and the

competition from other modes of transport. All of these factors are

constantly changing and so the forecasts always have an element of doubt

associated with them.

The requirement is that the master plan should set out a series of

forecasts which are as accurate as possible but which can be easily

updated.

2.2 Freight TrafficFreight ferry traffic provides the backbone of Dovers business. Trucks

prefer to use Dover as the frequent sailings allow a turn up and go

system to be operated. Trucks arrive at the port without bookings and are

allocated to the first available ferry by the chosen operator.

The trade between the UK and Europe is growing rapidly although this is

threatened by the increasing relocation of manufacturing capacity to

China and India. The expansion of the EU will encourage trade between

the countries of Eastern Europe. Government legislation throughout

Europe is seeking to control the growth of road traffic, encouraging more

use of sea transport as an alternative. This will tend to shift traffic away

from Dover towards longer ferry crossings from the Humber and Thames

Estuary. Traffic congestion in the South East of England will also tend to

reduce the volume of freight using Dover.

Taking all these factors into account, the master planning team have

produced the forecasts for freight ferry traffic shown in Section 2.8

below. This shows a steady increase in freight traffic with volume almost

doubling by 2034.

The freight traffic is not steady through the day and also shows variations

through the week. The ferry operators set up their service schedules so

that with everything working well there is enough capacity at peak hours.

The same ships are then run through the day with a vessel on the Dover

Calais run typically making 5 round trips per day. This results in theseemingly low deck utilisation (a measure of how full the ships are on


9/48


average) of around 50%. This low average deck utilisation allows the port

to clear a backlog of waiting trucks quite quickly after a period of

disruption. If the average rose to around 70%, as is usual on longer ferry

crossings, the port would take days to clear a backlog.

2.3 Car TrafficThe number of cars using the Dover Ferry services has been seriously

affected by competition from the Channel Tunnel Shuttle service and also

by low cost airlines offering attractive fly-drive packages. In a more

general level, the holiday traffic has been reduced by a trend to long haul

holidays rather than the more traditional journey to France.

The agreed traffic projections show a reduction in car traffic over the next

few years with a subsequent recovery to give an increase of 15% by 2034.

As with the trucks, car traffic has distinct peaks with low carryings in

winter and more on Bank Holiday weekends. Fortunately the peak car

traffic does not coincide with the truck peak.

2.4 CoachesThe coach trade through Dover is predicted to decline as a result of

changing trends in European holidays. A few years ago it was quite

common for people to use coach travel as part of a holiday package but

the low cost airlines have largely taken this function. Coach tours are still

popular but the average age of the customers is rising except in somespecialist areas. Total coach traffic is expected to halve by 2034. Even if

this projection is wrong, it will not have a large effect on the total ferry

traffic.

2.5 Fresh Produce (Fruit)Dover came into the fruit trade as part of a diversification policy before

the Channel Tunnel opened and the small facility is operated by a third

party, handling cargo for one major importer. Competition in the fruit

market is intense and it is likely that without an improved facility, the fruit

trade will reduce. If improved facilities can be offered, additional userscould be attracted, giving a 50% increase in throughput by 2034.

2.6 AggregatesDover provides a berth and handling facility for marine dredged

aggregates. The materials are for local use and this trade is expected to

stay relatively stable.

2.7 Cruise LinersAnother part of the Dover diversification was to build two cruise liner

berths in the Western Harbour. Dover acts mostly as the start and finishpoint for cruises to Scandinavia and it competes with Harwich in this


10/48


market. North Sea cruises are a steadily growing market but weather

dictates that it will only have substantial volume in the summer months.

The number of ship calls is expected to double between now and 2034.

2.8 Trade SummaryThe table below sets out a summary of the baseline traffic forecasts up to

2034. The actual trade may vary considerably from the figures given so

that the timing of demand for new facilities may change.

Trade Sector 2003 2014 2024 2034

Freight Million units 1.8 2.2 2.5 2.6 3.3 2.8 3.9

Cars Million units 2.6 2.3 2.6 3.0

Coaches 000 units 130 80-100 60-90 40-80

Fresh Produce 000 tonnes 263 rising to 350 - 400

Aggregates000 tonnes 220 Within the 200-250 range

Cruise Calls 117 140 180-190 200-250

Passengers Million 14.8 14.1 15.6 17.2

2.9 Traffic Growth Beyond 2034Although the present master plan study covers 30 years from the start in

2004, it is sensible to look at general trends beyond that date. It is likely

that the truck traffic will keep growing beyond that date although other

trades may have already changed radically. The master plan should

therefore allow for further growth in ferry demand.


11/48


3 Eastern Docks Capacity Studies

3.1 GeneralEarlier parts of the master plan study looked at options for the

development of the Eastern Docks and determined the ultimate capacity

of this area to accommodate ferry traffic. The capacity of the existing

fruit and aggregate facilities was also calculated.

A series of capacity aspects were considered, namely marine capacity (ship

movements), berth capacity (berth slots, vessel timetables and berth

throughput), and internal and external access capacity (landside traffic).These are explained in the following section.

To do the capacity calculations, a number of assumptions had to be made.

These can be summarised as follows: -

The ferry services will continue to be operated by a small number

of different companies using modern vessels.

Most traffic will be carried by conventional ferries. The high

speed ferry services will continue but are unlikely to expandsignificantly.

The smaller ferries will be replaced with Dovermax ferries

approximately 185m long with a beam of 28m. The ferry

operators have all stated that they have plans to do this. They

have also looked at using larger ferries but they have decided that

these will take too long to turn around in the Dover context.

Once these larger ferries are operating at around 50% deck

utilisation the operators will increase capacity by providing morefrequent sailings.

If the pattern of services changes from the above assumptions, the dates

on which the various phases of the system reach capacity will change. For

example, the change from the 2004 fleet to an all Dovermax fleet gives a

30% increase in the number of vehicles which the schedule can handle. If

a new operator were to come in and offer an additional service using

smaller ships, this could reduce the capacity of the system by taking up

berth slots and marine capacity, which would not then be available to

larger ships. The legal framework within which the port operates requiresit to offer facilities to new customers. The modelling does not show any


12/48


constraint on new operators but they are assumed to use large modern

ships.

Dover Harbour is essentially a linear activity with the marine capacity

feeding into the berth capacity which in turn feeds into the landside traffic

capacity. When any one of these areas reaches capacity, the whole system

cannot handle any more traffic. Improvements in one area may not

provide overall increases in capacity if another part of the system is

already at the limit.

3.2 The Need for a Robust SystemIn theory, with everything working to schedule and no problems, the Port

of Dover can handle several times its present throughput. This is

however a theoretical situation and in reality the capacity of the system is

fixed by its capacity to deal with the delays, breakdowns and disruptions

which are part of everyday life. The analyses described below have been

based on quality of service under realistic conditions not the theoretical

maximum capacities.

3.3 Harbour and Marine CapacityThe number of ferry sailings which the Eastern Docks can accommodate

is limited by the space available to manoeuvre ferries seaward of the ferry

berths.

The study of marine capacity was undertaken using ARENA, a simulationmodelling tool. The model was built to closely represent and mimic the

real marine system at the Eastern Entrance and off the Eastern Docks

berths. The rules applied to the ship movements were discussed with the

marine operations staff and ships masters working for the operators. The

model was validated by running the existing shipping schedules and

checking whether it reflected real events. The model was then used to

test a variety of shipping schedules to see how much extra traffic could be

accommodated without a deterioration of service levels.

The construction of Berths 8 and 9 has expanded the area available formarine operations and has improved the service levels. The modelling

showed that the Eastern Docks is able to accept a schedule containing 88

ship movements per day. Building further berths in the Eastern Docks

will not allow additional ship movements as they would use the same

manoeuvring space.

Generating shipping schedules to match the baseline traffic projections

shows that the Eastern Docks runs out of marine capacity in 2024 even

allowing for optimal shipping capacity. At this point more than 88 ship

movements are required. This date will change with varying traffic levels,changes in fleet composition or changes in vessel destinations.


13/48


3.4 Berth CapacityBerth capacity is the volume of traffic that the berths in the port can

handle. At first sight this may appear trivial as you simply put a new

vessel onto the berth when one departs and the berth capacity is the deck

capacity of the ship times the number of ships per day that the berth can

take. To achieve this capacity there would have to be a queue of ferries

waiting outside the port. This would be uneconomic for the operators

and frustrating for the passengers.

To do a proper analysis of berth capacity you need to look at which ships

will fit which berths and then build a schedule so that the same ships

come back to the same berths. The schedule has to allow for the time at

sea and the time alongside of each ship. The schedule also has to have

some slack in it so that the ship can catch up if she is delayed at any point.

The Dover conventional ferry berths as at the end of 2005 will be as

follows: -

BerthNo

LinkspanType

Max VesselLength (m)

VesselBeam(m)

Depth toSeabed

(m)

YearInstalled

1 Single deckwith stowablefinger ramps

Effectivelyunlimited

21.3 8.6 to 10.3 1987

2 Twin deck .Ramp intovessel. Paxwalkway over

178.5 28.5 7.3 to 9.3 1988

3 Twin deck.Ramp intovessel. Paxwalkway over

178.5 28.5 7.4 to 9.2 1987

5 Twin deck.Ramp intovessel Paxwalkway over

185 22.3 6.3 to 7.4 1980

6 Twin deck.Ramp intovessel. Pax

walkway over

185 27.7 7.7 to 8.3 1980


190 28.5 8.0 to 9.2 1993


218.8 28.5+ 8.5 2005


218.8 28.5+ 8.5 2005


14/48


In addition, the port has a cars only high speed ferry berth in the Eastern

Docks and a single high speed ferry berth on the hovercraft terminal in

the Western Docks.

Ferry schedules were developed for the years 2014, 2024 and 2034 based

on the traffic predicted for those years. The number of berths required to

handle these schedules was determined based on keeping a reserve berth

to ensure reliability of service. This exercise showed that the berths were

not likely to be the bottleneck given the assumptions made about fleet

mix.

3.5 Internal and External Access Capacity of Eastern DocksThe capacity of the internal and external access to the Eastern Docks was

assessed using VISSIM, a vehicular traffic model that simulates traffic

movements along a road network. A landside traffic micro-simulation

model was set up for this purpose and calibrated against the existing

situation.

Ferry landside capacity includes the capacity of the port internal road

system within the Eastern Docks, as well as the external road network

near the port. Landside capacity is also determined by the processing

capacity of the various control gateways through which traffic passes.

These include security, immigration and customs checks. The practical

capacities of these gateways are determined by operational efficiency,

whereas ultimate capacity is limited by the infrastructure such as howwide the roads are and how many weighbridges are available.

The capacity of the Eastern Docks is also determined by the capacity of

the assembly areas to store outbound traffic prior to departure. This

depends on operational factors, not only in terms of the effective use of

available assembly space, but also in terms of the requirement for such

space. This is in turn a factor of the scheduling and reliability of ferry

operations. If the ferries could operate to a perfectly regular schedule, the

assembly spaces could achieve a very high utilisation but in practice this is

not possible.

With a realistic ferry schedule, the assumed changes in fleet size and

sailing schedules and the baseline projection of traffic growth, the internal

road capacity of the Eastern Docks will be reached by 2020. In practice

this theoretical date may be over-optimistic due to fluctuations which may

occur in traffic arrival patterns and operating conditions. Consequently it

will be important to provide capacity outside the Eastern Docks

considerably in advance of this date. Modifications to the internal road

network and dock exit roundabout will also be needed well before that

date.


15/48


3.6 Overall Capacity ConclusionsAs can be seen above, the capacity of the Eastern Docks is determined by

its ability to provide good service levels in a number of areas.

The marine capacity of the docks is limited to 88 sailings a day. This will

be achieved by 2024 with all the assumptions made. The most significant

assumption is that all the ships sailing out of Dover will be Dovermax

size. There are a number of new ships on order for ferry routes out of

Dover, but if these are the only changes to the fleet, the marine capacity

will be reached in 2012. Accordingly important decisions will be required

in the near future. This date is very sensitive to changes in assumptions

and the number of sailings required each year will have to be monitored

carefully.

Consideration of berths shows that the number of berths available in

2005 appears sufficient to accommodate a 2034 timetable with predicted

2034 traffic throughput. If the number of operators was to change or the

fleet composition does not change as expected, the date for reaching

capacity will move. The marine capacity is always likely to be reached first

as it reacts to many of the same variables.

Internal and external access (landside) capacity appear theoretically

capable of accommodating traffic levels perhaps as far as 2020, based on

traffic modelling assuming optimal operating conditions and median

freight growth. Capacity is reliant on timetable compliance andoperational use of assembly areas and ticket booths. Outbound traffic

congestion on Townwall Street is a major issue both for the effect on

customers of having to wait so close to the port and for the numerous

ways in which it affects the quality of life of the residents of Dover.

Because of limited waiting capacity within the Eastern Docks, traffic can

build up very quickly on Townwall Street. This congestion can be

triggered by any disruption within the Docks and ferry system or by an

unusual arrival pattern in the traffic as a result of motorway congestion.

The other critical issue in the customers perception of Dover is the timebetween the lowering of the ships ramp and the vehicle being on the

open road outside the town. Any congestion within the Docks or the

town has a major effect on this.

To allow an increase in the traffic through the Eastern Docks, the whole

system must be examined carefully to improve the reliability of the

process and to make maximum use of the vehicle parking areas within the

port area. Even with all such measures taken, the capacity will never be

truly robust. With traffic well below the theoretical capacity of the

system, disruptions are still likely to cause congestion on Townwall Street.


16/48


The only other way to control traffic queuing on Townwall Street is to

control the flow of traffic leaving the M20. A proposal to build a holding

area to the west of Dover is discussed later in this document. In the light

of the Highways Agencys dislike of controlled signage on main routes, a

holding area used by all freight traffic would seem to be the only option.

A small change in traffic growth rates can change the date at which

capacity is reached. For example, changing from the baseline traffic

projection to the upside projection will bring the theoretical capacity date

forward by five or six years. It is important for DHB to be aware of the

issues which will affect the dates and to monitor these parameters. The

master plan study will leave DHB with a series of tools to model the

effects of changes as they occur.

A product of the master plan will be a description of the trigger points to

initiate the provision of new facilities. These trigger points will be in two

forms based on a theoretical look ahead and on the levels of service

actually being achieved. To determine the theoretical trigger points, it will

be necessary to estimate the time taken to procure each element of the

development and then calculate the traffic levels at the time when

procurement has to start. This calculation will have to take into account

both the traffic level and the rate at which the traffic is increasing.

It is much more difficult to establish the level of service thresholds as it

will be necessary to plot a number of key performance indicators such asthe number of times per year that queues develop outside the docks, the

number of ships which are delayed by more than 10 minutes each year

and the average time from ramp down to the last vehicle leaving the

docks. The rate at which these key performance indicators are changing

can then be used to determine the date on which they will pass the

threshold of acceptability.


17/48


4 The Environment of Dover Harbour

4.1 IntroductionThroughout history, the development of the town of Dover and the port

have been very closely related. As the port traffic has built up, the effects

on the town have increased so that now the interaction between the two

has become a major issue. In particular the road network to the port is

prone to congestion, affecting the environment of the town. Options for

the future are considered in this section.

4.2 ConstraintsThe constraints preventing the development of new projects within the

port are illustrated in Figure 4.1 and discussed below.

4.2.1 Cliff TopographySettlement patterns and port development over the centuries have been

influenced by the physical topography of the town, with future port

expansion beyond existing boundaries constrained by the cliffs and the

built development of the town.

4.2.2 Public Access, Recreational Facilities and Limited Water DepthPublic access to the sea and beach is confined to the stretch of coastline

between the Eastern and Western Docks and it is desirable that this isretained as a valuable local asset. This splits the operations of the Port of

Dover into two separate and distinct areas of the Eastern and Western

Docks.

Water sports and recreational boating take place in the waters fronting the

Marine Parade, again dividing the two distinct areas of port activity.

To retain the recreational use of the beach and foreshore requires care in

the design of the limits of dredging. The situation must be avoided where

a person can be standing on the bottom and then find themselvessuddenly in deep water as this is extremely dangerous. Similarly the

propeller wash from commercial shipping should not reach the areas

where people are wading. These constraints may affect the layout of

future developments.

4.2.3 Sites of Special Scientific InterestThe coastline from Port of Dover to Kingsdown is of national

importance due to its geology, geomorphology and varied flora and fauna,

including many rare species. The cliffs, from Shakespeare Cliff to behind

the Eastern Docks, are designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interestand include the sheer cliff faces and the wave cut platform at the base of


18/48


the cliffs. These sites provide the habitat for rare species and migrating

birds.

4.2.4 Recreational FishingAdmiralty Pier is a nationally recognised site for sea anglers with the area

adjacent to the Western Docks also used by local fishermen.

4.2.5 Access Road Frontage DevelopmentPort traffic to the Eastern Docks from the M20 uses Townwall Street

(A20). From the York Street Roundabout to the junction with East Cliff

the road is developed on both sides with flats, hotels, a leisure centre and

other town centre related development. This section of the route is within

an Air Quality Management Area. From East Cliff to the Eastern Docks

the route is adjacent to the East Cliff and Athol Terrace Conservation

Area. At times when the rate at which trucks arrive exceeds the capacity

of the Eastern Docks the traffic queues along the A20, which interferes

with local traffic and pedestrian movements. The Eastern Docks

roundabout has capacity constraints which can cause peak period

congestion. Even when traffic is flowing freely, port traffic combines

with local traffic to create the general noise, vibration and air quality

effects of traffic in the town centre.

The effects of local and port traffic cannot be separated and it is

important that the Dover traffic issues are considered as a whole. New

developments in the town will contribute to congestion in just the sameway that port traffic will. It is vital that all organisations in the Dover area

work together to minimise the problems on the towns roads. This can

only be achieved by sharing information and setting up an agreed model

of the traffic flows so that the effects of changes can be reviewed

dispassionately.

4.2.6 Listed Buildings and Ancient MonumentsWithin the port itself there are various Listed Buildings, which are

highlighted below. Any works requiring demolition or negatively

affecting the setting of these features will require consents. Very oftenthe effects of changes can be mitigated by finding alternative uses for

buildings or similar.

(a) Former Dover Marine Rail station

This is currently in use as a Cruise liner terminal, with one end converted

into a passenger facility, and a large portion of its remaining internal space

is used for car parking. The brick walling on the western elevation has

seen some modern alteration. Any major changes proposed here (e.g.

creation of new openings) are likely to require a detailed building

assessment to be carried out to establish the history of alteration to the


19/48


structure. This would allow a full consideration of its future conservation

requirements.

Connected to the main building is an overhead walkway with its own

entrance building, which is currently used by the local angling group to

access the Admiralty Pier for fishing. The presence of this structure

imposes constraints on manoeuvring and vehicle movements within the

Western Docks which may impact future port options. Safe pedestrian

access to Admiralty Pier can be provided in a number of ways and the

walkway will only be removed if no other viable solutions can be found at

reasonable cost. Part of the change may include the refurbishment of part

of the walkway so that its historical context can still be appreciated.

(b) The Prince of Wales Pier

The length of the pier imposes a constraint on shipping movements to

and from Admiralty Pier. The pier is perceived to have group value with

other pier and lighthouse features and to contribute to the whole

appearance of the harbour.

It is very likely that the outer end of the Prince of Wales Pier will form a

major obstruction to the development of the Western Docks and there

will be a strong case for its removal. It is possible that part of the pier

could be reassembled as part of a revised Western Docks layout but this

would need considerable further study. The layout of Dover Harbour has

been changed continuously to accommodate changes in circumstances.The modification of the Prince of Wales Pier would be a continuation of

this pattern.

(c) Other

Lord Warden House is currently used to provide offices. The building has

had substantial expenditure to preserve its basic fabric but it has lost its

original setting and is not well suited to its present use.

A crane structure which is an ancient monument has been retained within

the Wellington Dock area. The use of this area for the marina providesprotection for this structure.

Just outside the Western Docks, Waterloo Crescent comprises a row of

Regency town houses within the conservation area on the beach front,

which includes the DHB offices. These buildings are maintained to a high

standard and well used.

A section of the Western Docks falls within an area of defined

archaeological importance, including the Tidal Harbour and Granville

Dock. The potential of this area for marine archaeology has beenunderlined by the discovery of features of marine archaeological interest.


20/48


Whilst this does not necessarily preclude development, it does increase

the requirements for site investigations and excavations prior to any

development being allowed to commence.

4.3 OpportunitiesThe opportunities to develop new projects within the port, which could

involve both further expansion of existing uses and the development of

new facilities, are illustrated in Figure 4.2.

4.3.1 Space PotentialThe Eastern Docks is the main focus for passenger ferries and is the most

heavily utilised area of the port. Capacity of the Eastern Docks could be

improved by relocating a number of buildings within the port boundaries

to outside the port, and converting single/low-storey buildings to multi-

storey for further intensification. The space potential created and the

relevant cost involved would determine the attractiveness.

Another option is relocation of the coach interchange area outside the

port, although a major concern is the potential impact on the coach trade.

4.3.2 Underutilised Port Land and Water AreaThe Western Docks contain large buildings and spaces which are only

partially used. There is also a large area of underutilised water around the

Prince of Wales Pier and expansion of port operations here needs to be

reconciled with the historic interest of this part of the site.

Future options for large scale port expansion towards Shakespeare Cliff

have been discussed for some years. In an early part of the study, these

options were carefully reviewed and ruled out for the foreseeable future.

The cost of the breakwater system is simply too high to obtain an

economic return.

4.3.3 Wellington Dock areaThe Wellington Dock is a relatively small water area surrounded by a

number of historic buildings and port features. The entrance toWellington Dock is narrow and spanned by a swing bridge which gives

access to the Hovercraft Terminal area of the Western Docks. The dock

is too small for modern shipping but it provides the ideal site for

waterfront development, linking the town and the beach. This link could

include improved footpaths and cycle ways. It could also be used to

improve the appearance of the river Dour which discharges into the

basin.

The successful De Bradelei Wharf has provided a much used facility

which is in keeping with the surroundings. Further property developmentis possible without detracting from the area and without losing this


21/48


section of the marina. Options under consideration include an extension

to De Bradelei Wharf and an hotel on the seaward side of the dock.

4.3.4 Potential to Re-establish the Rail LinkTraditionally the Western Docks was served by a rail link which delivered

passengers and freight to the quay edge and to the Train Ferry Berth.

In the absence of a rail ferry service, it is difficult to see what cargo such a

service would carry and if passengers wish to use a rail link to the

Continent, they are likely to use the Eurostar service.


22/48


5 Development Options

5.1 ApproachThe overall approach to the initial development options was to show a

number of possibilities which fulfil individual trade growth requirements

or some limited combinations of them. This was so that a range of costs

for development for each trade could be shown. These then assisted in

prioritisation of trades and development options, taking account of the

revenue associated with each development option.

Following the trade prioritisation process, the development options were

re-assessed from a different viewpoint. Options were refined by varying

them, combining them and in some cases by phasing the development ina different manner. For each variant the outcome of the study

undertaken to determine the capacity of the existing port was taken into

account. This allowed the most feasible solutions to be determined and

put forward, whilst still taking the individual trade growth requirements of

the port as well as its capacity into consideration.

The main conclusion of the trade prioritisation is that the ferry business

generates considerably more revenue per berth and per unit of area

occupied than any of the other trades using the Port of Dover. The

cruise business has received considerable investment and this will allowDover to hold its position in a limited market place. Major investment

would also be required to maintain or improve the position of the fruit

trade and this would need strong justification. The aggregates business

shows a good return on its existing facilities but it would be difficult to

justify new construction. The Marina has never operated at capacity and

it struggles to cover its operating costs.

In this Zoning Report, feasible options contributing towards a preferred

zoning plan are described. The preferred options are outlined in greater

detail providing better information as to their economic andenvironmental feasibility and their appropriateness in meeting the capacity

requirements of the Port.

5.2 Exclusion of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development OptionsThe development options from Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the Master Plan

Study were amended taking account of financial viability and overall

feasibility while satisfying the trade growth requirements of the port. An

explanation as to the reasons for the exclusion of some of the

development options raised at Stage 1 and 2 of the study, are given below.


23/48


5.2.1 Eastern DocksThe existing berth capacity of the Eastern Docks is sufficient to cope with

an increase in marine traffic based on a developed timetable for 2034.

The overall capacity of the Eastern Docks is determined by the ability to

get ships to the berths and the road traffic in and out of the port. Neither

of these problems can be solved without dramatic changes to the port and

the town. It would not be possible to keep the port operating at capacity

during such changes. Development options including additional berths in

the Eastern Docks have therefore been excluded.

5.2.2 Western DocksSeveral of the possible schemes for the Western Docks provide very large

capacity increases at a single stroke but they also carry very large costs and

they will not be commercially viable.

Developments resulting in the displacement of the aggregates facility in

favour of cruise or other cargo berths appear not to be financially viable.

This is mainly due to there being no added benefit from removing an

income generating trade to make way for other options that are not as

financially rewarding.

Alterations to the port entrance either by extending the Admiralty Pier or

removing the existing entrances and creating a single entrance are not

financially feasible. The only benefit is the reduction in wave exposure

for Western Docks development options, which when valued against thecosts involved cannot be financially justified. Further, a single port

entrance may increase downtime in parts of the Eastern Docks which is

unacceptable due to the effects this will have on the ferry trade,

specifically in terms of congestion and delays. These options have

therefore been discounted.

5.2.3 Outside the PortAs already discussed, the costs to develop berths outside the existing port

are very high and could never show a reasonable financial return at

present tariff rates. Some time in the future, such a development may bepossible but certainly not until the capacity of the existing port has been

maximised.

5.3 Choice of Zoning Report Development OptionsThe various factors contributing towards the choice of development

options are outlined below. Only options that comply with these

requirements have been considered further.

5.3.1 Ferry DevelopmentThe ferry trade remains by far the most important trade to the port and itis important to cater for its future growth. The baseline demand forecast


24/48


calls for three new ferry berths in the Western Docks with a fourth berth

if traffic growth follows the high end scenario. If traffic grows in line

with the low end scenario, the requirement for new berths within the

study period will reduce. All the forecasts show the need for a number of

new ferry berths in the Western Docks, the only difference between the

scenarios being timing.

Based on the above, it is important to make space provision for new

facilities while carefully monitoring traffic growth to determine the

phasing and timing of developments.

An added consideration in the expansion of the ferry trade is that it

creates far greater employment and secondary benefits than any of the

other trade options. It is clear that the choice of such a development is

far superior economically to the other options.

In theory it would be possible to gain landside capacity in the Eastern

Docks by making more dramatic changes to the internal road layout but

the costs would be considerable and relatively soon after the predicted

saturation date, the Eastern Docks runs out of marine capacity. Such

internal improvements would only exacerbate the congestion problems on

Townwall Street. The service provided by a port which is very close to

the limit on both landside and marine operations is going to be unreliable

and bad for the long term future of the port.

5.3.2 Cargo DevelopmentThe costs of providing completely new facilities for the fruit trade would

be substantial. These could only be justified by obtaining suitable

guarantees and long-term contractual commitments.

5.3.3 Cruise Terminal DevelopmentThe traffic projections show the number of cruise liner calls increasing to

200-250 at the end of the study period. Each cruise call occupies the

berth for a day so how many calls can be accommodated at each berth

depends on the length of the season and the exact pattern of calls withinthe season. It is possible to provide a longer berth to meet the growing

market for ships of over 300m or a third cruise berth for the smaller

cruise liners by removing the spur pier which forms the Jetfoil Basin. Any

other location for an extra cruise berth is likely to restrict ferry operations

and DHB will have to decide which trade will take precedence.

5.4 Zoning Report Development Options5.4.1 General

The chosen options for development are shown in the sketches in

Appendix Aand discussed in more detail below. Appendix B


25/48


summarises the options descriptions, advantages, disadvantages and any

relevant comments.

5.4.2 Option I : Do MinimumThis option is based on carrying out minimal improvements, at relatively

low cost and minimising disruption to existing services. In the short

term, these measures can improve the quality of service offered but

pressure of traffic will steadily erode this gain. In the longer term,

congestion and delays will increase, if this option is used in isolation,

progressively reducing the quality of service offered by Dover.

Elements which could be included are as follows:

Revised A20 dock exit and dock exit roundabout improvements

(initial studies in progress)

Lane width and weighbridge improvements inside the Eastern

Docks

Revised ferry fleet (increasing carrying capacity)

Extend ticketing area

Green transport measures to reduce car parking spaces and

reduce staff car traffic impacts

Consider reduction in the unaccompanied trailer park size and

relocation to reclamation in the East Catamaran Berth area,

between Berths 6 and 7

Consider relocating coach interchange area out of port, with area

being used for either marshalling/assembly area, increasing

queuing area in front of ticketing or for Dover Cargo Terminal

Upgrade Berth 5 to accommodate wider beam vessels (ongoingupgrading of vessels in future will increase berthing difficulty at

this berth otherwise)

These measures are fairly self explanatory. Each produces a small

incremental increase in capacity or an increase in reliability at fixed

throughput. None of them however addresses the specific issue of traffic

congestion on Townwall Street. The following concepts do have a direct

impact on Townwall Street and therefore demand closer inspection.


26/48


Compactor Corner Improvements

Compactor Corner is the point at which the traffic going to the

berths in the Eastern Docks turns seaward at the base of the

cliffs, heading towards Berth 1. A key constraint on the landside

capacity of the Eastern Docks arises due to the fact that upstream

of Compactor Corner, the approach route consists of only 3

lanes. If there is a queue caused by one operator being unable to

process traffic through the check-ins, traffic builds back to

Compactor Corner where it then blocks vehicles intending to use

other operators from reaching the check-ins. Once this happens,

the rest of the Eastern Docks road system rapidly chokes, causing

a tail back onto Townwall Street. A review of alternative highway

layouts through Compactor Corner has been undertaken in order

to assess the scope for providing additional operator specific

storage capacity. This will delay the point at which one

operators traffic disrupts the entire operation.

Four preliminary options have been considered. Three of the

options are based on an alignment north of Easter Camber

Office building and the fourth on an alignment south of the

building. Some options involve significant demolition and

relocation of buildings and the replacement of weighbridges.

Additional capacity of up to 60 lorry spaces can be provided and

would lead to a reduction in the incidence of outbound traffic

queuing outside the Eastern Docks.

At best, this work at Compactor Corner simply delays the

moment at which queues spread outside the port and there could

be substantial expense and disruption involved. It is a useful idea

but in itself it has only a small effect.

Buffer Zone Concept

This concept is based on the very simple idea that it is possible to

monitor and predict the rate at which the ferries can load vehicles

from the Eastern Docks. It is also possible to monitor the rate atwhich vehicles are arriving at the south edge of Dover heading

for the Eastern Docks. If the rate of arrivals exceeds the rate of

ferry loading, the result can only be stationary traffic on

Townwall Street. The factors determining the uplift rate by the

ferries are not easily controlled in the short term but it is possible

to take off the peaks in the traffic arriving into Dover by holding

some vehicles until the peak has passed. This would allow

Townwall Street to run more consistently, reducing the tendency

to congestion.


27/48


The analysis of landside capacity in the Eastern Docks has

demonstrated that the key constraint on capacity, assuming that

inbound capacity problems are largely dealt with by the

construction of the Dock Exit Scheme, is the amount of space

available to accommodate outbound traffic waiting to embark on

a ferry. The need for substantial storage largely applies to non-

pre-booked freight traffic although the same thinking can be

applied to all traffic. Given the space constraints within the

Eastern Docks, consideration has been given to the possibility of

creating a secondary queuing area outside the Eastern Docks so

as to reduce the need for pre-embarkation storage within the

Eastern Docks.

A number of options for the location of such a secondary

queuing area have been considered, with one option having

considerable advantages in terms of potential size and ease of

access.

As an alternative, DHB is having preliminary discussions with

landowners in relation to an off-road site accessed from the

A20 west of Aycliffe Roundabout to locate a buffer zone. The

advantages of a buffer zone in this location compared to one

on the Granville Dock site are twofold. Firstly, the area of land

available is potentially larger and secondly access to the site

would not be via the existing busy roundabout junctions withinDover.

A site west of Aycliffe roundabout would be suitably located

for M20 port-bound traffic. This is the Highways Agency

strategic route for traffic to Dover. If the Highways Agency

were to change the strategic route to use the A2, the preferred

site would be to the north of that road. With a single buffer

zone, the traffic using the other route would have to be co-

ordinated with the main flow of traffic. This is done by the

port police under the present system and seems to work well.The best solution would be waiting areas on both the

approaches, co-ordinated from a central control in the port.

Whichever option is chosen, consideration has to be given to the

way a secondary queuing area would operate in practice. The key

issues to be considered include:

The need for the route from the buffer zone site to the

Eastern Docks to be free from congestion and for the

operators to have good IT links, including links to trafficinformation, to be able to manage the facility efficiently


28/48


Whether checking-in will take place in the buffer zone site

Whether the buffer zone would be used all the time or just in

peak hours

The type of traffic that will use the facility. Initially it is

assumed that non-pre-booked freight traffic will be the main

user although it could handle cars as well

How traffic approaching on the M2 corridor will be co-

ordinated with the main flow along the M20

Who will operate the buffer zone and whether one or all

ferry operators will use it

The size of the freight buffer zone

Traffic implications at the turn into and out of the zone.

Port Expressway Concept

A review of the Highway Agencys Port Expressway concept has

been undertaken. The concept is to segregate Port traffic and local

traffic on the A20 between Aycliffe Roundabout and the Eastern

Docks entrance by converting the eastbound carriageway to two-

way for local traffic only, and converting the westboundcarriageway to two-way port traffic only.

While this idea seems at first sight to separate the two flows well, it

suffers from the inherent fault that two way roads are much more

prone to disruption than dual carriageways. It will also lead to

some complex junctions.

The conclusion is that the concept provides an alternative approach

but it does not solve the basic problem of more traffic arriving in

the port than the facility can handle.

A number of alternative layouts have been considered during Phase

2 Stage 2 of the study, including a modified Aycliffe Roundabout,

traffic signals and a flyover arrangement. Further work is required

before any firm conclusions on feasibility or capacity can be

reached.

Recommended Elements

The recommended elements of Option I are as follows:

Revised A20 dock exit and dock exit roundabout improvements


29/48


Compactor Corner improvements

Lane width and weighbridge improvements as outlined in Phase 1

Green transport measures to reduce car parking spaces and

reduce staff car traffic impacts

The establishment of a buffer zone.

5.4.3 Option F : Convert Hoverport High Speed to Conventional FerryThis scenario creates one new double deck conventional ferry berth for

minimal cost in the Western Docks, at the expense of the fast ferry berth.

The fast ferry operations out of Dover have never really thrived in the

same way as the conventional ferries and they would seem to be under

increasing threat from fly-drive services provided by the low cost airlines.

The throughput of the existing high speed ferry service out of the

Hoverport does not really justify the space that it occupies and there is

the option to move it to Berth 1 in the Eastern Docks.

The option of building a single conventional berth in the Western Docks

is not particularly attractive as all of the existing operators require more

than one berth and would almost certainly not be willing to split their

operation.

Any Western Docks development will require some investment in

facilities for the regulatory authorities to handle freight vehicles and this

will be more attractive if used to service several berths.

The land area available on the Hoverport is adequate for conventional

ferry operations. The local highway network including the Prince of Wales

roundabout and the swing bridge are adequate to accommodate the

higher ferry discharges and loads although a greater number of freight

vehicles making a right turn at the roundabout carries a safety risk. The

right turn traffic could also create a major problem if the swing bridgewere to open, closing the road to traffic, when there is already stationary

traffic on the inside lane of Townwall Street. This has the potential to

gridlock the road system until the bridge re-opens to road traffic. If the

swing bridge were to open just at the point where the traffic from a large

ferry was exiting the Hoverport area this would lead to congestion within

the terminal and frustration for the drivers. The conclusion has to be that

it is not practical to operate large conventional ferries into the Hoverport

area while the swing bridge is still in operation.

This variation can form part of an overall development strategy for theWestern Docks but it has problems as a stand-alone development.


30/48


The sketch showing the joint development of Options F and G2 (Phase

1) relative to the entire Port is shown in Figure 5.1.

5.4.4 Option G2 : Add One Ferry Berth (Saw-tooth) - HoverportThis option involves reclamation on the northern side of the Prince of

Wales Pier, creating one ferry berth in saw-tooth configuration in the

Western Docks. One new double deck conventional ferry berth is

created. This is at the expense of the fast ferry berth as its vehicle storage

area is needed. The aggregates facility is retained but the freight clearance

facility is reduced. This option is medium term and does not convert

easily to a long term solution for an increasing ferry trade. However, a

change in formation of the reclaimed area to the north of the Prince of

Wales Pier would allow for long-term development.

Exposure to excessive wave action is a possibility for the new berth being

near the Western Entrance. This will need detailed investigation using the

existing wave models of Dover. This modelling is reasonably expensive

and the schemes need to be refined before the modelling is done.

The new berth would affect the views from the beach area. The physical

impact on the beach area must be confirmed and mitigated, where

necessary. It would restrict the use of the water area off the beach and the

associated impact of dredging for ferry access also needs to be checked.

Increased land space would be required towards Lord Warden House aswell as towards the Town Yard area. For two berths, road access via

Prince of Wales or Limekiln roundabout or a combination is acceptable.

This option has the advantage of keeping the majority of the existing

Prince of Wales Pier in place subject to a structural load analysis, but cuts

off public access.

Access via Limekiln roundabout may allow a longer internal road system,

to provide queuing lengths in front of control agencies and ticketing, as

well as assembly areas. To ensure separation from the non-port roads, aseparate swing bridge would be required across the entrance to

Wellington Dock. There would be a loss of car parking (Union Street), the

marina yard near Prince of Wales roundabout and a reduction in the

Freight Clearance Facility area. Access to the RNLI/tugs/marina berths

has to be maintained and may be constrained. Use of the marina would

be affected, with a need for replacement parking further away, restricted

or impeded access, no marine yard and possibly surrounded by a freight

buffer zone.

On a positive note however, the Dover Pride Project is considering apotential marina development at the eastern end of the beach. If it


31/48


happens, this replacement marina would decrease the impact and effect

the ferry trade development has on marina use within Granville Dock and

the Tidal Harbour.

Again Figure 5.1 shows the development of Options F and G2 (Phase 1)

relative to the entire Port.

5.4.5 Option G4 : Add Two Ferry Berths (Jetty) - HoverportAs with Option G2, this option also involves reclamation on the northern

side of the Prince of Wales Pier creating one ferry berth in saw-tooth

configuration. However, in addition to this, this option also involves

creating two ferry berths in jetty configuration in the Western Docks.

The two ferry berths would be on the northern side of the Prince of

Wales Pier (that is, on the reclamation-side south of the single berth in

saw-tooth configuration). One new double deck conventional ferry berth

for minimal costs is created. This is at the expense of the fast ferry berth.

This option caters for long-term development.

As for Option G2, increased on-land space would be required towards

Lord Warden House and the Town Yard area. However, on-land space in

this area is limited so for this 4-berth option additional land is required

and is provided by reclaiming the existing marina outer basins (Granville

Dock and Tidal Harbour), with a replacement marina proposed on the

northern side of the Prince of Wales Pier. In terms of capacity, the new

marina caters for the 200 to 250 berths lost so together with theWellington Dock marina provides the 400 to 450 berths currently

available at the Western Docks. Access to the Wellington Dock basin is

achieved through the new marina as entrance via the marina outer basins

will not be possible.

Filling in the basins is not a particularly attractive option and an alternate

is possible by reclaiming off Shakespeare Beach to provide the additional

space required for the fourth berth. This land space would however be a

long way from the berths, causing operational difficulties.

Exposure to excessive wave action is a possibility for the two berths in

jetty configuration and the one berth in saw-tooth configuration, as with

Option G2 and will need to be investigated. Wave exposure at the marina

entrance will also need to be investigated.

The associated landside issues linked to this development are similar to

those in Option G2, including the minor works required to the Prince of

Wales Pier.

The sketch showing the development of Option G4 (Phase 2) relative tothe entire Port is shown in Figure 5.2.


32/48


5.5 Phasing of Zoning Report Development Options5.5.1 Ferry Development

The ferry development options outlined in Section 5.3 include the

introduction of the conventional ferry trade at the Western Docks to cater

for any traffic overflow from the Eastern Docks, based on the Ports

forecast traffic.

The capacity study of the Eastern Docks indicates that the limit in terms

of meeting the forecast traffic, based on the landside capacity results, is

likely to be reached within the next few years. Therefore the Western

Docks is required to accommodate the remaining forecast traffic overflow

from the Eastern Docks thereafter.

In terms of meeting the traffic overflow from the Eastern Docks, it is not

necessary for all berths in the Western Docks to be provided at once

when the capacity at the Eastern Docks is reached. The provision of the

berths could occur in three phases as and when the forecast overflow

traffic increases to levels the current berths are unable to accommodate.

Therefore the development options outlined in the sections above can

effectively be considered different phases of a single expansion

development to be embarked on over the next 30 years, in line with the

ports master plan.

For this phased implementation, Phase 1 would include the provision of a

single berth by converting the existing Hoverport fast ferry berth to aconventional double deck ferry berth (as for Option F in Section 5.4.3).

A second berth (similar to Option G2 in Section 5.4.4) would also be

provided. This involves reclamation on the northern side of the Prince of

Wales Pier creating one ferry berth in saw-tooth configuration in the

Western Docks. Following on from this Phase 2 involves the provision

of two ferry berths in jetty configuration created on the reclamation on

the northern side of the Prince of Wales Pier. This development is similar

to Option G4 (see Section 5.4.5).

The sketches showing potential phasing of conventional ferry berths inthe Western Docks are shown inAppendix C.

5.5.2 Roundabout AssessmentThe traffic performance of Limekiln and Prince of Wales Roundabouts

has been assessed for 2020 and 2034 in relation to the proposed

development of two berths at Western Docks. A number of access

options using Limekiln and Prince of Wales roundabouts were considered

and the capacities of the roundabouts were checked for each of these

scenarios.


33/48


The results show, in theory, the Limekiln roundabout operates

satisfactorily in all scenarios in 2020 and is marginally over desirable

design parameters in 2034 in the AM peak on one approach for one of

the access options.

Similarly the modelling shows that Prince of Wales roundabout will be

operating below its design parameters in 2014 and after the development

of berths in the Western Docks in both AM and PM peaks. However,

capacity will be exceeded in 2034 in both AM and PM peaks in all three

access options. This means that the roundabout junction will need to be

amended or improved before 2034 with the two berth Western Docks

development scenario.

This modelling is based on the through traffic being free flowing and of

course this does not happen at present with regular queuing on the inside

lane of the roundabout. Improvements will be required much earlier at

both roundabouts if their eastbound approaches continue to be blocked

by traffic queuing back from Eastern Docks.

The introduction of the buffer area will greatly increase the practical

capacity of the roundabouts by reducing or eliminating the queuing

traffic.


34/48


6 Planning Structure

6.1 IntroductionThe criteria developed for the assessment of planning issues for the

options are based on trying to ensure that the needs of relevant policy

principles are met. The principal focus is on the need to protect the

environment and heritage aspects of the site and its environs and to

ensure that future development helps to diversify and support the wider

economy of the town as a whole.

6.1.1 Strategic Planning ContextThe Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 has fundamentally changed

the structure of plan making in the UK. Regional Spatial Strategies willreplace Structure Plans and Local Development Documents will replace

Local Plans.

The Kent and Medway Structure Plan (Deposit Plan September 2003) provides

the current strategic planning context for the Kent and Medway area.

Policy TP20 of the Structure Plandefines Dover as a Core Port, with

those in Sheerness, Thamesport and Ramsgate. This definition indicates

the safeguarding of the port function, and support for further

development, provided it meets with transport, access, design and

sustainability requirements.

The Structure Planhighlights Dovers ability to expand its current

operations within existing port boundaries, and particularly within the

Western section of the port. It also promotes the reintroduction of rail

services to the port, the upgrading of the A2 to dual carriageway, and

improved traffic management on the A20, in order to facilitate increased

activity.

The Structure Planwill ultimately be replaced by the Regional Spatial Strategy

and a consultation draft of the South East Planhas recently been publishedfor public consultation. Policies T7 and T8 support maintenance and

encouragement of further ro-ro services, niche market and short sea

services at Dover. The supporting text for these policies refers to Dover

in the following terms:

The primary focus for ro-ro services will continue to be across the

Dover Straits, using either cross-Channel ferry services operating via the

Port of Dover or shuttle services operating through the Channel Tunnel.

Restoration of a rail connection into the Port of Dover, together with

improvements to road access along the A2 corridor should be givenpriority in the medium term. In the longer term consideration will need to


35/48


be given to the capacity of the road and rail corridors serving both the

Port of Dover and the Channel Tunnel and to the need for a Thames

Crossing east of Dartford.

6.1.2 Local Planning ContextThe provisions of the Dover Local Planin respect of new developments at

the port are now several years out of date and have been overtaken by

recent developments at the port and by work on the Dover Pride Vision.

The Dover Local Development Framework is currently under preparation and a

consultation document on Issues and Options is expected shortly. The

provisions of the Local Planin respect of heritage and conservation issues

are not expected to change significantly, as these reflect national planning

policy.

The Dover Pride Strategy and Action Plansets an ambitious framework for

regeneration of the town. The Strategy asserts that the local economy is

dominated by the port, which accounts for about 25% of employment in

the town, although there are few high value local jobs and its drive

through operations limit the benefits which are realised within the local

economy (staying visitors on average spend 400 as opposed to the 26

spent by day visitors). It recognises that the port is sensitive to changes in

Channel Tunnel operations and the European economy but its long term

growth prospects are positive.

One of the strategic objectives of the study relates to realisation of thepotential of port expansion and it is recognised that this could create a

variety of new opportunities for the town. It asserts that Dover could

become a true gateway port for the South East region within the East

Kent Pas de Calais sub-region. Possibilities include the development of

port related activities (such as marine and road transport instrumentation

and ship docking systems), import-export processing activities to add

value to freight which currently passes through the port (such as food

processing and packaging) and logistics activities (including groupage,

freight forwarding and transport fleet management). The Strategy asserts

that some of these activities could be located within the port itself (mainlywithin the Western Docks) but other activities would need to be located

in the Port Zone and the White Cliffs Business Park at Whitfield (100

acres of which remain undeveloped).

The Strategy also raises the possibility of the creation of a new waterfront

destination at the eastern end of the waterfront, which would create an

opportunity to relocate the marina from the Western Docks. It is unclear

what implications, if any, this would have for the operation of the Eastern

Docks and it is acknowledged that the idea needs further investigation

and testing.


36/48


The Strategy also suggests that the problems of heavy through traffic

along the A20 Townwall Street between the town centre and the seafront

could be addressed in part by a strategic routing of port traffic; along the

M20 to the Western Docks and the A2/M2 to the Eastern Docks,

together with sophisticated traffic light control to pulse traffic along the

A20 to the Eastern Docks between pedestrian and local traffic

movements. This may well have implications for passing trade from

which Dover currently benefits and needs investigation.

6.1.3 EnvironmentEnvironmental changes to air and water quality and sediment movement

are an inevitable part of intensification of port uses. These are discussed

in Section 6.2 below together with any mitigation measures that should

be undertaken to relieve environmental impacts. In the assessment

criteria described in Section 6.2 below, environmental issues are

subsumed as necessary within the criteria dealing with port boundary,

reclamation, traffic and policy criteria.

6.2 Assessment CriteriaBelow is a brief description of the different criteria adopted in the

assessment criteria table. The options are evaluated qualitatively using a

five point scale as follows:

Significantly Negative

Negative

Neutral

Positive

Significantly Positive

Table 6.1 includes a number of comments that are specific to the

development options.

6.2.1 Port BoundaryThe Structure Plan focuses on the need to confine new development

within the existing port boundary. This is particularly related to the effects

on environmentally sensitive areas to the east and west of the site.

6.2.2 Reclamation, Dredging, and Marine Flora and FaunaThe ferry development includes significant land reclamation within the

port boundary and will change the view to seaward from the beach area.

Archaeological interests may also be affected but given sufficient leadtime and funding, the archaeology of the area can be fully explored.


37/48


The dredging and reclamation will cause a short term increase in turbidity

and this should be carried out at a time of year when the impact on

bottom dwelling fish will be minimised. In all consideration of the marine

environment of Dover Harbour, it should be remembered that the whole

environment is artificial and it cannot be viewed in the same light as

undisturbed natural habitats.

The base of the Prince of Wales Pier is a good habitat for lobsters, hermit

crabs, edible crabs, prawns and whelks. Reclamation along this pier will

have a significant detrimental affect on these populations but this can be

compensated by recreating the same environment elsewhere in the

harbour.

6.2.3 Hydrodynamic RegimeAlterations to the current berth configuration at Western Docks will have

some effect on the hydrodynamics of the port. Modelling will have to be

undertaken to ensure that there are no unexpected effects.

6.2.4 HeritageThere are a number of listed buildings/structures and ancient monuments

within the port boundary. The way in which each structure is affected by

the development must be reviewed and agreement reached on what

actions are needed.

6.2.5 PolicyThere are a number of current policy documents which are relevant in

relation to the port. These are described in the previous introductory

section. Positive responses to these criteria are recorded by retaining

development within the existing port boundaries such as Phase 1 of the

ferry development, and increasing the provision of port specific

businesses, such as facilities for cruise services.

6.2.6 PublicThere are currently a number of public access points and amenities withinthe Port. Options are assessed on their impact on facilities such as the

water sports centres and the marina, and on access such as the public

promenade and beach, and the fishing area provided on Admiralty Pier.

6.2.7 TrafficPort traffic can have impacts both within and outside the port boundary.

Options are assessed from a strategic standpoint, looking at overall impact

on both internal features (requiring access across the swing bridge) and on

the transport network outside the Docks. This is particularly important

for the junctions along the A20, (which runs parallel to the portboundary) where there are already significant levels of traffic.


38/48


6.2.8 Pollution(a) Noise Pollution

During the phased construction of the development, construction

vehicles may generate increased levels of noise. The general operation of

the berths will only slightly increase the noise levels over and above those

already existing in the Western Docks.

(b) Air Quality

Air quality monitoring currently takes place within the Port of Dover to

ensure compliance with Health and Safety Legislation and codes of

practice. If levels are dramatically increased due to the development then

the Western Docks could become an Air Quality Management Area

(AQMA). The two major sources of poor air quality are emissions from

the ships engines and generators and emissions from stationary vehicles.

The former is being addressed by the ferry operators introducing scrubber

systems on the vessels. The best way to address vehicle emissions is to

keep the traffic moving. Introducing the buffer zone is the best

approach to preventing port traffic queuing on Townwall Street.

(c) Water Quality

With the development in the Western Docks the probability of water

pollution incidents within the Western Docks water area would be

increased marginally. The water quality of the Wellington Dock will have

to be carefully monitored. There are a range of remedial techniques

available if problems are detected.

(d) Light Pollution

Levels of light pollution may increase following the completion of the

development although the replacement of older style light fittings with

modern low spill types will compensate.


39/48


Option

Port

Boundary

Reclamation

Dredging,

Marine

Flora

andFauna

Heritage

Polic

y

Public

Traffic

Nois

ePollution

AirQ

uality

Wate

rQuality

UseofGreenland

Comments

F 0 0 - ++ + 0 - - 0 0 0 This option does not impactreclamation or development removing the fast ferry optioprovision it does not contribthe port.

G2 0 - - - + - - - - - - This option involving land rehave a significant impact on the beach front, although thireclamation. However, there Wales Pier.

G4 0 - - - + - - - - - - This option involving land rehave a significant impact on the beach front, this could hawater sports facilities on the significant impact on the listeGranville Dock and the Tidaissues.

I 0 0 0 0 + + 0 0 0 0 0 -

Assessment Key:

-- Significantly Negative- Negative0 Neutral+ Positive

++ Significantly Positive

Table 6.1: Assessment Criteria without Mitigation Measures


40/48


6.3 Outline Economic ImpactThis outline economic impact of the various development options for the

Port of Dover is based upon a classification of five primary sources of

benefit/cost. These are briefly outlined below.

Construction Phase these effects relate to the benefits and

costs associated with the construction phase of the project and as

such are likely to be transitory;

Direct employment and GDP arising directly from port

operations and dependant activities (includes shipping

agents/brokers);

Indirect employment and GDP arising from suppliers to and

activities arising from port activities but not directly dependant

upon port activities;

Induced employment and GDP resulting from direct and

indirect spending and also economic activity generated by port

visitors;

Wider Economic Effects ports effect on social, economic

and physical conditions (related to attractiveness to non-port

businesses, regeneration, tourism etc).

Table 6.2 illustrates the impacts associated with each development option

described in Section 5. Port development generally will have positive

direct and indirect economic benefits, induce higher port employment and

local spend and add to the ports ability to attract clustered economic

activity.

In general, the cargo related option boosts economic benefits arising from

cargo and aids the retention of the business. The ferry development

options allow increases in ferry related economic benefits but may impact

on leisure and tourism near the Port.


41/48


F G2 G4 I

Construction Phase Minor benefits Some benefits Few benefits

DirectFerry benefits

Fast ferry lossMore than F More than G2 Minor ferry ben

Indirect Small rise More than F More than G2 Minimal rise

Induced Will rise More than F More than G2 Will rise

Wider Economic

EffectsWill add marginally More than F More than G2 Limited

Table 6.2: Economic Impact of Development Options


42/48


6.4 Planning FindingsIn general terms the planning policy context is supportive of further port

growth, provided impacts on the environment and the wider Dover area

are beneficial. However, there are some important heritage/conservation

issues which apply at the local level, and because of these those options

which imply a smaller scale of growth appear more positive in terms of

the planning assessment. However, whilst it is relatively straightforward to

identify local constraints to development, it is much harder to predict

wider economic benefits. This may require some difficult choices, given

the range of environmental and heritage issues which apply and the need

for the port to grow and adapt to changing commercial requirements.

Whilst the options may appear to have negative implications, the detailed

design of these options will have a significant effect on the overall

evaluation. For example, issues of public access and loss of amenity can

be solved through working solutions into the options. Likewise heritage

issues, whilst serious, are not an absolute constraint to future

development, but they do require that there is a clear operational need for

development, and that least damaging options have been thoroughly

evaluated and ruled out for genuine reasons. The value of heritage

buildings is important and whilst they should wherever possible be

preserved, it is important to understand that a building is better retained

in a slightly changed format, whilst providing a viable modern function,

than saved purely as an inconvenient museum piece.

The planning assessment clearly indicates that encroachment into areas

outside the current port boundary would be undesirable, particularly in

terms of environmental protection of the important habitats to both the

east and west of the port, and this issue is clearly identified by the relevant

local authorities as likely to be unacceptable.

In conclusion the options provide a range of opportunities, some of

which raise significant planning issues. However, the options do offer

ways of combining the business needs of the port with the wider needs of

the communities as a whole. In the longer term, if the port continues toexpand and large areas of new reclamation are required, the conflict with

planning policies is likely to become more pronounced.


43/48


7 Conclusions

The conclusions set out below are a summary and the reader should look

at the text of the report for details of each issue: -

1. The present operation of Dover Harbour