|
Bristol Port Company felt sufficiently strongly about the proposed designation of the Severn to take the matter to the European Court, where they inevitably obtained a judgement of Delphic impenetrability! The Court determined that it was for the European Commission rather than the UK government to select sites. The UK government role was to offer a list of sites from which the Commission could choose. The reality is clearly not going to be like this at all, with the Commission rubber-stamping whatever the Member States of the EU propose.
Bristol went further, and published an impressive volume, a copy of which is the House of Commons library, that clearly shows that the way in which other Member States have used designation is completely different to the UK approach. On the Continent, there is not one single instance where the approach channels to a port, or the port working area have been included in a designation. The Dutch, for example, specifically make what they call ‘exclaves’ from a designated site so that designation does not interfere with normal human activity. By contrast, in the UK, where the feature ‘estuary’ is the reason for designation, a line is drawn across the headlands, and the whole water area is included. At present, the problem has – at long last – been recognised as a major issue by UK government and they are showing a quite unusual degree of determination to press the Commission to resolve the matter. It seems highly improbable that the other member States would be prepared to adopt the UK approach. For example, a cynic might suggest that “Article One of the French Constitution is that Laws Apply to Other People!”
|
