Dover Harbour Useful Info

Dover Harbour Board
Port of Dover 30 Year Master Plan Zoning Report July 2005
Halcrow
Halcrow Group Limited

Burderop 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 sole and 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
Contents Amendment Record

This report has been issued and amended as follows: Issue 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Revision 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 Description Draft DHB comments - Revised Redraft DHB comments DHB comments 2 DHB comments 3 DHB comments 4 Date 11.05.05 17.06.05 29.06.05 04.07.05 08.07.05 29.07.05 18.11.05 Signed MBM MBM RJC RJC RJC RJC RJC
Contents
1 Introduction 1.1 General 1.2 The Issues 1.3 Objectives Trade Forecasts 2.1 General 2.2 Freight Traffic 2.3 Car Traffic 2.4 Coaches 2.5 Fresh Produce (Fruit) 2.6 Aggregates 2.7 Cruise Liners 2.8 Trade Summary 2.9 Traffic Growth Beyond 2034 Eastern Docks Capacity Studies 3.1 General 3.2 The Need for a Robust System 3.3 Harbour and Marine Capacity 3.4 Berth Capacity 3.5 Internal and External Access Capacity of Eastern Docks 3.6 Overall Capacity Conclusions The Environment of Dover Harbour 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Constraints 4.3 Opportunities Development Options 5.1 Approach 5.2 Exclusion of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Options 5.3 Choice of Zoning Report Development Options 5.4 Zoning Report Development Options 5.5 Phasing of Zoning Report Development Options 1 1 2 2 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 10 11 13 13 13 16 18 18 18 19 20 28
Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005
Planning Structure 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Assessment Criteria 6.3 Outline Economic Impact 6.4 Planning Findings Conclusions Zoning Plan 8.1 General 8.2 Ferry Trade 8.3 Other Trades 8.4 Summary
30 30 32 36 38 39 41 41 41 43 44
7 8
Figures Appendix A Preferred Option Sketches Appendix B Preferred Option Descriptions Table Appendix C Phasing of Preferred Options
1
1.1
Introduction
General
Dover 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 contribute to 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 growth requirements. 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 for public consultation.
1.2
The Issues
Dover 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
Objectives
The 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;
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.
N Eastern Docks
Western Docks
Admiralty Pier
Western Entrance
Eastern Entrance
Southern Breakwater
Figure 1.1 Port of Dover Layout
2
2.1
Trade Forecasts
General
In 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 Traffic
Freight 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 the seemingly low deck utilisation (a measure of how full the ships are on
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 Traffic
The 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
Coaches
The 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 some specialist 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 users could be attracted, giving a 50% increase in throughput by 2034.
2.6
Aggregates
Dover 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 Liners
Another part of the Dover diversification was to build two cruise liner berths in the Western Harbour. Dover acts mostly as the start and finish point for cruises to Scandinavia and it competes with Harwich in this
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 Summary
The 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
Freight Cars Coaches Fresh Produce Aggregates Cruise Passengers Million units Million units 000 units 000 tonnes 000 tonnes Calls Million
2003
1.8 2.6 130 263 220 117 14.8
2014
2.2 2.5 2.3 80-100
2024
2.6 3.3 2.6 60-90 rising to 350 - 400
2034
2.8 3.9 3.0 40-80
Within the 200-250 range 140 14.1 180-190 15.6 200-250 17.2
2.9
Traffic Growth Beyond 2034

Although 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.
3
3.1
Eastern Docks Capacity Studies

General
Earlier 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 expand significantly. 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 more frequent 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 requires it to offer facilities to new customers. The modelling does not show any
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 System

In 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 Capacity

The 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 simulation modelling 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 for marine 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.
3.4
Berth Capacity
Berth 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: Berth No
1
Linkspan Type
Single deck with stowable finger ramps Twin deck . Ramp into vessel. Pax walkway over Twin deck. Ramp into vessel. Pax walkway over Twin deck. Ramp into vessel Pax walkway over Twin deck. Ramp into vessel. Pax walkway over Twin deck. Ramp into vessel. Pax walkway over Twin deck. Ramp into vessel. Pax walkway over Twin deck. Ramp into vessel. Pax walkway over
Max Vessel Length (m)

Effectively unlimited 178.5
Vessel Beam (m)

21.3
Depth to Seabed (m)

8.6 to 10.3
Year Installed
1987
28.5
7.3 to 9.3
1988
178.5
28.5
7.4 to 9.2
1987
185
22.3
6.3 to 7.4
1980
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
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 Docks

The 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 how wide 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.
10
3.6
Overall Capacity Conclusions

As 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 and operational 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 time between 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.
11
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 as the 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.
12
4
4.1
The Environment of Dover Harbour

Introduction
Throughout 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
Constraints
The constraints preventing the development of new projects within the port are illustrated in Figure 4.1 and discussed below.
4.2.1
Cliff Topography Settlement 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. Public Access, Recreational Facilities and Limited Water Depth Public 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 is retained 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 themselves suddenly 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.
4.2.2
4.2.3
Sites of Special Scientific Interest The 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 Interest and include the sheer cliff faces and the wave cut platform at the base of
13
the cliffs. These sites provide the habitat for rare species and migrating birds. 4.2.4 Recreational Fishing Admiralty Pier is a nationally recognised site for sea anglers with the area adjacent to the Western Docks also used by local fishermen. Access Road Frontage Development Port 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 same way 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 Monuments Within 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 often the 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
4.2.5
14
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 provides protection 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 been underlined by the discovery of features of marine archaeological interest.
15
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
Opportunities
The 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 Potential The 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 multistorey 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 Area The 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 area The Wellington Dock is a relatively small water area surrounded by a number of historic buildings and port features. The entrance to Wellington 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 development is possible without detracting from the area and without losing this
16
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 Link Traditionally 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.
17
5
5.1
Development Options
Approach
The 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 in a 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 allow Dover 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 and environmental feasibility and their appropriateness in meeting the capacity requirements of the Port.
5.2
Exclusion of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Options

The 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.
18
5.2.1
Eastern Docks The 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. Western Docks Several 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 the costs 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.
5.2.2
5.2.3
Outside the Port As 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 be possible but certainly not until the capacity of the existing port has been maximised.
5.3
Choice of Zoning Report Development Options

The 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 Development The ferry trade remains by far the most important trade to the port and it is important to cater for its future growth. The baseline demand forecast
19
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 Development The 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. Cruise Terminal Development The 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 within the 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.
5.3.3
5.4
5.4.1
Zoning Report Development Options

General The chosen options for development are shown in the sketches in Appendix A and discussed in more detail below. Appendix B
20
summarises the options descriptions, advantages, disadvantages and any relevant comments. 5.4.2 Option I : Do Minimum This 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 (ongoing upgrading 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.
21
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 at which 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.
22
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 nonpre-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 within Dover. 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 coordinated 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 traffic information, to be able to manage the facility efficiently
23
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 coordinated 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 twoway for local traffic only, and converting the westbound carriageway 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
24
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 Ferry This 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 bridge were 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 the Western Docks but it has problems as a stand-alone development.
25
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) - Hoverport This 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 as well 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, a separate 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 a potential marina development at the eastern end of the beach. If it
26
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) - Hoverport As 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 the Wellington 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 to the entire Port is shown in Figure 5.2.
27
5.5
5.5.1
Phasing of Zoning Report Development Options

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 a conventional 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 in the Western Docks are shown in Appendix C.
5.5.2
Roundabout Assessment The 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.
28
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.
29
6
6.1
Planning Structure
Introduction
The 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 Context The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004 has fundamentally changed the structure of plan making in the UK. Regional Spatial Strategies will replace 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 Plan defines 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 Plan highlights 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 Plan will ultimately be replaced by the Regional Spatial Strategy and a consultation draft of the South East Plan has recently been published for 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 given priority in the medium term. In the longer term consideration will need to
30
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 Context The provisions of the Dover Local Plan in 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 Plan in respect of heritage and conservation issues are not expected to change significantly, as these reflect national planning policy. The Dover Pride Strategy and Action Plan sets 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 the potential 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 (mainly within 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.
31
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 Environment Environmental 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 Criteria
Below 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 Boundary The 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. Reclamation, Dredging, and Marine Flora and Fauna The 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 lead time and funding, the archaeology of the area can be fully explored.
6.2.2
32
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 Regime Alterations 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. Heritage There 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. Policy There 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. Public There are currently a number of public access points and amenities within the 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. Traffic Port 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 port boundary) where there are already significant levels of traffic.
6.2.4
6.2.5
6.2.6
6.2.7
33
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.
34
Use of Green land

0 0
Dredging, Marine Flora and Fauna
Noise Pollution
Port Boundary
Reclamation
Water Quality
Air Quality
Heritage
Comments
Option
++
Public
0
Policy
Traffic
-
This option does not impact on any listed buildings/structures or involve reclamation or development outside the port boundary. However, by removing the fast ferry options and replacing them with more ro-ro ferry provision it does not contribute significantly to economic diversity within the port. This option involving land reclamation to the north of Admiralty Pier could have a significant impact on sedimentation and dredging requirements along the beach front, although this saw-tooth option involves slightly less reclamation. However, there will still be significant impacts on the Prince of Wales Pier. This option involving land reclamation to the north of Admiralty Pier could have a significant impact on sedimentation and dredging requirements along the beach front, this could have implications for the provision of public water sports facilities on the beach and inner harbour area. This option has significant impact on the listed Prince of Wales Pier. The infilling of Granville Dock and the Tidal Harbour raise significant heritage & tourism issues. -
G2
G4
Assessment Key: -Significantly Negative Negative 0 Neutral + Positive ++ Significantly Positive
Table 6.1: Assessment Criteria without Mitigation Measures
35
6.3
Outline Economic Impact

This 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.
36
F
Construction Phase Direct Indirect Induced Wider Economic Effects Minor benefits Ferry benefits Fast ferry loss Small rise Will rise Will add marginally
G2
Some benefits More than F More than F More than F More than F
G4
More than G2 More than G2 More than G2 More than G2
I
Few benefits Minor ferry benefits Minimal rise Will rise Limited
Table 6.2: Economic Impact of Development Options
37
6.4
Planning Findings
In 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 to expand and large areas of new reclamation are required, the conflict with planning policies is likely to become more pronounced.
38
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 is focused in the Eastern Docks putting great pressure on the traffic flows along Townwall Street. 2. Restrictions on marine access and road infrastructure means that the Eastern Docks will reach capacity sometime around 2020. The exact date will depend on a large range of variables such as traffic growth, fleet configuration, operator behaviour, regulatory controls and safety regulations. 3. There are a number of detailed measures which can be taken to improve current levels of service and possibly delay the date at which capacity is reached in the Eastern Docks. 4. Dover Harbour Board should actively pursue the option to develop holding or buffer areas on the two main approach routes to the docks. This will allow the traffic flows to be controlled, reducing congestion. 5. The Western Docks offers the most opportunities for rationalisation and further intensification of use, provided heritage and conservation issues are addressed. 6. Fast Ferry operations will probably be displaced from their sole use of the Hoverport but facilities elsewhere can be developed. 7. Additional cargo operations would require suitable guarantees and long-term commitments to justify further investment. 8. The cruise terminals probably provide sufficient capacity for the next 30 years, depending on how the cruise market develops. 9. The aggregates trade should continue on its existing facility so long as is possible. 10. Dover Harbour Board should start investigations and planning for the development of 4 new ferry berths in the Western Docks.
39
They could be built in a phased programme to suit the requirements of the traffic and the operators. 11. The Western Docks development will raise a number of environmental issues and affect some listed structures. Discussion of mitigation and compensatory actions should start as soon as possible. 12. The existing marina operation will be affected quite early in the Western Docks developments and there need to be early discussions about the provision of alternative marina facilities. These can be linked to improving the safety of small craft operations in the harbour. 13. The Western Harbour development must be planned around the road access, ensuring that road safety and congestion are not compromised. 14. A programme of stakeholder and public consultation is needed to ensure that all accept the development path and agree the steps needed to achieve it.
40
8
8.1
Zoning Plan
General
The stages of the master planning process have produced a number of options for the future development of the Port of Dover. This report has reduced the number of options and allowed them to be put into a logical sequence. These preferred development options are shown in Figure 8.1. The timing and exact sequencing of the developments will be driven by the operational requirements of each trade. The options discussed in this report are developed to match the forecast trade through the port. With time, the trade forecasts will change and the schemes will have to be reviewed to address these changes. Even if the schemes remain as shown, the timing of each development will have to be kept under review using a series of trigger criteria.
8.2
8.2.1
Ferry Trade
Eastern Docks The Eastern Docks should remain the focus for the ferry trade, for the short to medium term. Recent enhancements to ferry operations include the recent addition of Berths 8 and 9, the increase in the dredged area off the Eastern Docks berths and the recent extensions to the ticket booths and the overhead roadway. Further improvements identified include the Dock Exit bypass inbound, which will relieve pressure on the Dock Exit roundabout. An increase in the number of freight weighbridges and other minor highway improvements will also improve the flow of traffic within the Eastern Docks. The operation of the ticket booths would be smoother as a common user facility but this reduces the ability of the operators to differentiate between the services that they offer. The operation of the new outbound juxtaposed controls remains a significant risk to outbound operations. It should be noted that the current levels of traffic congestion are undesirable, with significant delays and associated environmental and market/customer impacts. Developments in the future must maintain a better traffic flow than at present.
41
Even with traffic improvements in place, the road system in the Eastern Docks reaches its theoretical capacity by 2020 with the predicted rate of traffic growth and assuming optimal operating conditions. The introduction of Berths 8 and 9 has improved berth availability and increased the number of berth slots. In theory, no new ferry berths are required to meet the predicted 2034 traffic flows, but the capacity of the Eastern Docks is limited by how many ferries can get through the harbour entrance and onto the berths safely. With the present trade forecasts and Dovermax vessels, this marine capacity is reached in about 2024 8.2.2 Western Docks Due to limitations in the Eastern Docks, much of the future traffic growth will need to be accommodated on new ferry berth(s) on the Hoverport area. A phased development has been described in Section 5.5.1 of this report. If there is sufficient demand to continue fast ferry operations from Dover, one or more suitable berths could be planned when more detailed consideration is given to the layout. Early phases of this development will use land at present dedicated to the freight clearance facility and the marina yard facilities. The freight clearance facility can be relocated outside the port but without the supporting yard facilities, the marina trade will be at risk. As further ferry berths are added in the Western Docks, the existing marina will have to be closed, due to the infilling of Granville Dock and the Tidal Harbour. This is a significant loss to the amenities of Dover and there are a number of options to replace the marina facilities elsewhere in the harbour. There remain a number of other significant issues associated with the development options, such as impact on Prince of Wales Pier and the adjacent beach frontage. In the meantime, fast ferry use remains appropriate. The access to the Western Docks via Prince of Wales and Limekiln roundabouts produces problems if there are traffic disruptions elsewhere and modifications will have to be made to ensure that these junctions can perform under all conditions.
8.2.3
Beyond the Port The use of waiting areas or buffer zones on the A20 and/or A2 provides the only practical way to regulate flows outbound and allow better use of the Eastern Docks assembly areas. The buffer zone could also be used for freight ticketing and weighbridges, reducing processing time within the Eastern Docks.
42
There is little doubt that regulating the arrival of outbound vehicles (especially freight) to the Eastern Docks would remove the significant capacity restriction caused by outbound traffic overflowing the capacity of the assembly areas and backing up to the Eastern Docks roundabout and further west. The operation of the buffer zone will have to be carefully managed to provide such a regulated flow, supported by good traffic management and IT systems linked to the Eastern Docks. Success in implementing buffer zones could slightly delay the need for Western Docks ferry berth development but more importantly they will significantly reduce the impact of the port traffic on the town.
8.3
Other Trades
The use of the Dover Cargo Terminal facility in the Eastern Docks has improved following investment this year in two new state-of-the-art mobile quayside cranes. However, major investment would be required to expand market share and this would only be justified by suitable guarantees and long-term commitments. The Admiralty Pier should continue as the focus for the cruise trade. It has been shown to be possible to extend the Cruise 1 quay or Cruise 2 quay, for a multi-purpose quay, however the restricted land area limits operations and the development costs are not attractive. It may be more practical to use this extension option as a means of providing additional cruise capacity. The Freight Clearance Facility (FCF) can continue to be accommodated within the Western Docks, until port use development options require the space. It could potentially operate on a reduced space, or even be relocated outside the port. The aggregates facility should remain or have its area increased, for example by adjustment of the FCF and adjacent storage buildings. Alternatively, the aggregates facility would be suitable for conversion to fast ferry use, when the Hoverport area is converted to conventional ferry terminal. The costs of conversion may not prove financially attractive. The continued use of the marina area links the harbour to the town and further sensitive waterfront development is possible around Wellington Dock, since this area is not required for port use. However ferry development in the Western Docks in the medium term will threaten the viability of the marina and in the longer term the marina will be displaced from its present site. The town and the Harbour Board are already working together to develop concepts for an alternative marina location.
43
8.4
Summary
Although the development area available to the Port of Dover is limited, it is possible to improve the facilities to handle additional traffic. The focus of this development must be on ferry traffic as Dovers geographical position makes it pre-eminent in this market. While expanding the port facilities, every care must be taken to improve the environment of the area around the port. In particular, the management of road traffic must be improved to eliminate queuing traffic through the town. The use of buffer zones outside the town is the best approach to this. To make better use of the space in the Western Docks, it will be necessary to make some changes to the layout and this will affect some of the existing facilities. Dover Harbour Board and the other statutory authorities will have to work together to ensure that, where facilities are modified, other measures are put in place to minimise the impact or replace the lost facilities.
44

Dover Harbour Useful Info

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dover Harbour Useful Info

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dover Harbour Board

Port of Dover 30 Year Master Plan Zoning Report July 2005

Halcrow Group Limited

Halcrow Group Limited 2009

Dover Harbour Board

Contents Amendment Record

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Figure 1.1 Port of Dover Layout

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Fresh Produce (Fruit)

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Traffic Growth Beyond 2034

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Eastern Docks Capacity Studies

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

The Need for a Robust System

Harbour and Marine Capacity

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Max Vessel Length (m)

Vessel Beam (m)

Depth to Seabed (m)

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Internal and External Access Capacity of Eastern Docks

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Overall Capacity Conclusions

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

The Environment of Dover Harbour

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Exclusion of Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Options

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Choice of Zoning Report Development Options

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Zoning Report Development Options

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Phasing of Zoning Report Development Options

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Use of Green land

Dredging, Marine Flora and Fauna

Assessment Key: -Significantly Negative Negative 0 Neutral + Positive ++ Significantly Positive

Table 6.1: Assessment Criteria without Mitigation Measures

Issue 2 Rev 4 18 November 2005

Outline Economic Impact