17 April 2024
You may well have seen the recent ‘confident’ statements in the media from Portsmouth City Council regarding Tipner West. The council plans to build housing and businesses on Tipner West, a sensitive nature site and one of the last wild places in the city. They are mainly focussed on a criticism of Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust (HIWWT) and gave bare mention of the significant value of the Tipner West site with regard to intertidal mudflats or the council's intention to cross major red lines for nature that will establish an incredibly damaging national precedent.
This area currently has the highest levels of environmental protection status that it is possible to have. It is a Ramsar site, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Protection Area.
It begs the questions – Is this council taking serious and well considered actions on the green issues they so often assert? Do they really understand the ecological impacts for this particular site; the existing intertidal protection values and the flooding implications for construction plans? Is this environmental damage what we all want Portsmouth well-known for?
While we fully understand the need for more housing on our island city, we agree with HIWWT that many of the proposed developments at Tipner West to extend the peninsula into Portsmouth Harbour, or building on protected land are just too large and expected to significantly negatively impact legally protected environments at that location. We fully understand the need to protect our low-lying island from the environmental damage caused by rising sea levels. We implore the Council to listen more carefully to HIWWT and recognise the existing flooding and natural environmental coastal land protections at Tipner West.
The Portsmouth Green Party have consistently voiced our opinion on the proposed Tipner West development to PCC. We implore Portsmouth City Council to seriously reconsider the initial concept of raising the Tipner West site by four metres and address the serious environmental concerns of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust.
#DontGoThere #DontCrossTheLine
Tipner West has been considered for development since at least 1953 despite it being a legally protected natural area. It is currently home to Tipner firing range, a number of historic gunpowder stores, a school and a marina. Dog walkers and locals also enjoy one of the few wild areas left in Portsmouth. The mud flats surrounding the peninsular and the grassland south of the firing range are important for a number of species. The firing range is not a protected site and is an obvious candidate for building housing. Portsmouth is in need of additional housing but this in the context of having restricted land area and a lack of green spaces. Planning such a large scheme is a highly complex process with transport, employment, costs, funding sources and nature all being factors. Changing any one aspect of a proposal might make funding more or less difficult to achieve. Decades of political wrangling have put the project under new pressures and the council is making a renewed attempt to bring it to a conclusion. Currently, all proposals have a funding shortfall of at least around £50 million. This may be funded by a central government body such as Homes England, but both the funding shortfall and likelihood of attracting funding both push the council towards proposals more destructive of nature. It seems that the larger the development, the more financially beneficial it appears. Money is again the driving force in loss of natural habits. The council seem unconcerned about the habitat lost saying it will be replaced by habitat improvement elsewhere. Steve Pitt commented "Wherever we end up, we make sure that there is overall full compensation and some for any harm that is caused to any natural resources as part of this." However replacing an established habitat with a new offset project may not be ecologically beneficial in the short term.
Many proposals have been made for housing and employment areas over the years. Recently, a huge "super-peninsular" was put forward, involving a huge 27ha land reclamation project that would have been devastating to mud flats and grassland habitats. A campaign by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the RSPB named #DontGoThere was key to getting the council to rethink the plans. However, most proposals considered by the council still involve smaller developments on these protected natural sites. HIWWT has updated their campaign to "Don't Cross the Line", saying that no building should occur on any protected natural site, and natural space should be provided in any development.
The habitats are Special Protection Area (SPA), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Ramsar site, which is the highest level of protection that can be granted. This protection can only be overturned if there are "imperative reasons of overriding public interest". Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust is concerned that if this development overturns the protection of this site, it sets a dangerous precedent and many other natural sites would be under threat.
The clock is ticking for Portsmouth City Council as it has already spent £23.7m over the last 7 years on developing the project. If the development was cancelled, this money would need to be repaid according to the conditions of the City Deal grant. This is something the council is very keen to avoid. The land is also contaminated from previous industrial use and local buildings need new sea defences, which need to be addressed. However, to get into this situation where they promised to develop in and around a legally protected natural site was reckless. HIWWT said the council made "foolhardy decisions to pursue a development which crosses legal red lines for nature". In the near future, various planning documents begin to expire which will incur further costs of £150,000 per month of delay after Autumn 2024. The council has already ruled out the "do nothing" option due to costs. However, if no viable proposal can be created without destroying protected sites, it may be we need to stop throwing good money after bad.
In December 2023, the council shortlisted two proposals for Tipner West. Both have a marine employment area around Tipner Point with a 0.45ha land reclamation to extend the quayside to create a single contiguous site. This means both options cross HIWWT's red line of not building on protected sites. This presumably makes the employment area more attractive to funding grants and attracting businesses. Both proposals have housing on the existing firing range. They differ in that one plans to build on the protected southern grassland (Option B) while the other does not (Option A). The council claims building on the southern grassland will allow for a better housing mix with additional affordable units. Counter intuitively, the funding required for not building on the southern grassland is double what it is to build on it. Again, money considerations threaten nature. The option to completely avoid building on protected natural sites (Option 1(A)) seems to have been dropped due to the costs and need to attract external funding.
The plans make no reference to the climate emergency. Given the council has committed to a net zero goal by 2030, this site should be planned and built to be almost compliant with that goal. This mainly involves providing sustainable transport links and low energy well insulated housing.
The council now has to choose a scheme to develop further. If it cannot attract funding for that scheme, it faces a funding apocalypse. However, options that protect natural areas are being dismissed as financially unviable. As if a wild grassland or a natural mudflat is somehow responsible for running up council costs? Basically, we sacrifice natural spaces to subsidise our unsustainable housing and building.
Portsmouth Green Party RSS Feed