NewsPerspectivesPulse

Plymouth Freeport “not of benefit to air further”

Jim Funnell Column HeadingI’ve been researching Plymouth & South Devon Freeport (PASD) and South Hams Council for 6 months now, and I can confidently state that if there is one single, uncontestable certainty- it is that residents have not had the full facts and implications on the Freeport aired enough.

So imagine my surprise when I was told otherwise – by one of the organisations charged with protecting our valuable landscape and protected areas which PASD Freeport now encompasses with its (un-consulted and unexplained) 75km outer boundary.

South Devon National Landscape (SDNL) used to be known as ‘South Devon AONB’ (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). Its committee is comprised of some really important stakeholders whose role is to safeguard and nurture all aspects of our protected landscape. These include the National Trust, Natural England, Historic England and Southwest Coast Path Association.

In turn, SDNL is part of the wider association of 46 ‘National Landscapes’ that span England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The National Landscapes Association claims that in fact 15% of the land in England sits within a National Landscape. Therefore, South Devon National Landscape’s remit is important, and we place substantial trust in its dilligence, independence and dedication to its core purpose. How it assesses risk could have significant implications across our entire country.

Additionally, it is only right that all the organisations who sit on SDNL’s committee should have full access to  all information on any National Landscape aspect that might affect them, their members and their communities.

South Devon National Landscape LogoSpeaking up

I applied to speak as a member of the public at the start of the South Devon National Landscape meeting that was held on 15th March 2024. Members of the public are invited to speak on any matter and make a three-minute statement. I requested to speak on the matter of Plymouth Freeport, believing this would be of clear interest to the organisation.

My request was refused on the grounds that it would not ‘be of benefit to air this subject further.

megaphone wrapped in barbed wire. the concept of banning freedom of speech. censorship barbed wire megaphone
freedom of speech?

Not ‘free to speak’ on the Freeport?

Surprised at this mysterious refusal, I responded to SDNL in no uncertain terms, challenging every barrier they had presented.

One reason given for refusal was that I had asked a 50 word question about the Freeport at a South Hams Council meeting 4 months previously. I felt this precise reference to a single question which was entirely unconnected to the National Landscape organisation itself was strange to say the least (there is, or rather should be, no directional control or coercive connection between the distinct organisations. South Devon National Landscapes is not part of South Hams Council or Plymouth and South Devon Freeport).

Another reason for refusal concerned their assertion that “…the matter of the South Devon Freeport has already been discussed at length at previous [SDNL] Partnership meetings”.

I felt compelled to query the factual accuracy of this information being presented, writing;

“I have been through all the minutes…and I am afraid I cannot see any minuted record of other discussions on the Freeport at Partnership meetings since the meeting of 22 November 2022. I would welcome clarity on which other partnership meetings the Freeport has been discussed at length as stated so it is clear for the public record.”

A re-think

Three days later- I was given permission to speak. So I ‘aired’ my questions on
Plymouth Freeport area Plymouth and South Devon Freeport and its potential risk to our Protected Landscape and South Hams Conservation Areas. Here’s my statement:

“More than a year ago Plymouth Freeport signed a Memorandum Of Understanding with councils and Government. It has finally been released and reveals that the “Freeport” is in fact defined as the entire area within the outer boundary, and not just the tax sites – a position previously held.

It also reveals that the Freeport’s objectives are to – quote – “attract new businesses to the…wider region…to expand their operations…to benefit from the Freeport levers and further generate supply chain opportunities across the Freeport Outer Boundary, Travel-To-Work Area and across the wider South West.”

The Freeport now states on its website that ‘positions’ may have ‘evolved’ and that future ‘significant changes’ with implementation are possible.

The Freeport boundary encircling the Protected Landscape and South Hams SAC [Special Areas of Conservation] is not meaningless  but a zone for delivering ‘impacts’, ‘benefits’ ‘regeneration’ and ‘innovation measures’ to the entire boundary area – and they might change further. The Freeport is a transformational vehicle which no Joint Local Plans envisaged.

How has this economic growth been assessed for the South Hams SAC and National Landscape?

The Freeport Bidding Prospectus states that “Successful [Freeport] bidders will be expected to conduct an assessment of the environmental impact…before any public funds or tax measures are authorised.”

But these have been authorised – so what is the impact on the Protected Landscape and Special Areas of Conservation for:
⦁ Visitor pressure: added use, access and demand from economic uplift
⦁ Added traffic impacts on air quality and habitats from recreational and planned supply-chain expansion across the entire area.
⦁ Increased demand on sewerage and drainage
⦁ Public access and rights of way including the planned-for additional future customs sites

Habitat Regulation Assessment [HRA] should have assessed the direct and indirect impacts…including Landscape Character, Biodiversity, Marine, Estuaries, Access, Recreation, Transport, Highways and Rural Economy.

It would be extraordinary for the National Landscape to have had no sight of the Freeport’s HRA assessment, and if this is the case, what will National Landscape do from now on to protect this landscape and its vital habitats? Especially if the Freeport’s position evolves to reveal that it evades regulation on HRA requirements?”

A Gas Pipeline: will the South Devon National Landscape look like this
Gas Pipeline – (for illustrative purposes)

South Hams- a perfunctory response?

It was clear no-one had had any sight of an HRA (Habitats Risk Assessment) for Freeport development. In fact, it felt like this was the first time this subject had even been brought up.

The South Hams officer who had decided to attend the meeting that day subsequently offered to respond to these far-reaching questions with a ‘5 minute’ update on the Freeport and South Hams position at a later date.

I found this dimissive and extremely disappointing – especially since South Hams claims to have declared a ‘climate emergency’ but when it comes to the precautionary principle that is enshrined within Habitats Regulations Assessments I was getting the distinct impression they would prefer to bypass the need for thorough, reassuring dilligence when it comes to our Protected Landscape and Special Areas of Conservation.

9 km Hydrogen Pipeline – a taste of Freeport things to come?

Now, just a month after that meeting, we have confirmation of a 9 kilometre underground hydrogen pipeline heading deeper into South Hams from the Freeport Langage tax & customs site to china clay mines on lower Dartmoor. ‘Langage Hydrogen’ is part of the ‘Freeport’ project – in fact its centrepiece-  extending out beyond the tax sites into the outer boundary, and it seems my questions to South Devon National Landscape weren’t so wide of the mark after all.

Indeed, Plymouth & South Devon’s ‘Linked-In’ post is clear that the Freeport’s outer boundary can look forward to not only ‘accelerated’ implementation of electric vehicles and hydrogen, but other ‘pioneering new solutions’. Where are the plans for these? Can we see them? If not- why not? Where’s the oversight? ‘Pioneering solutions’ across National Park, Protected Areas and Special Areas of Conservation sound like they should be discussed – in advance- with residents and community interest groups?

Freeport Linked in Post

In fact, I will go one step further, and state that it looks like I was dead on the money with my statement to SDNL.

We need to scrutinise Freeport outer boundary plans very, very carefully. But to do this, we first need the Freeport and South Hams to be upfront and release them to the public. After all- we’re helping to fund them!

Hydrogen is not necessarily the ‘silver bullet’ for net zero. But it is already clearly intended to be rolled out across the outer boundary without consultation under the Freeport. And what next? With the outer boundary door now ‘wide open’, what other ‘pioneering solutions’ can we look forward to being imposed on us? And why is no-one else asking these important questions about scrutiny, oversight and mitigating risk?

Time for some clarity & dilligence

South Hams District Council Logo

I believe residents should feel reassured that their council is not only going to follow the letter of every regulation, but also be prepared to go ‘above and beyond’ to prove to concerned residents that the Freeport is not the streamlining, de-regulationary vehicle described in the government’s own literature.

And meanwhile the mystery remains; why would it ‘not be of benefit to air this subject further’?

It seems clear (to me at least) that when it comes to Plymouth Freeport & South Hams, the more ‘air’ that can be got to this subject the better.

The problem of the Freeport is not that it is discussed ‘too much’ but that the majority of residents have not been given full information, or even had vital documents released on the subject (see my article ‘Time to release the Dartmoor Document‘).

Instead of closing down potential discussion on the Freeport, our protective organisations should instead be demanding – at volume and pace- the need for total transparency, proactivity, and full disclosure of what Plymouth & South Devon Freeport means for us, for nature and for our protected landscapes.

Is even asking questions about the Freeport now not desirable?

If that is the case, we should all worry about what comes next. What other Freeport plans are “not of benefit to air further” – and who’s deciding this?

We do need urgent clarity – before someone else’s plans get rolled out across the Freeport’s 75km outer boundary – and we (again) are the last ones to know.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
claire morley
claire morley
9 months ago

Thank you Jim Funnell for your persistence and incisive pursuit of the facts about the obscured goings on surrounding the Freeport and its relationship with other local supposed representational bodies. Much appreciated.

Dot Spink
Dot Spink
9 months ago

Thank you so much Jim for this detailed information and to Totnes Pulse for publishing it here. I don’t claim to fully understand all the complexities but i do understand the right to question, challenge the institutions who are making decisions without our full knowledge. I imagine a lot of people have either never heard of Freeport or have but don’t really understand what it actually means. And who is it going to truly benefit?

Dot

2
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x