What does the Port of London Authority (PLA) do?

The PLA controls the tidal Thames from Teddington Lock to the beginning of the North Sea.  They have control of the riverbed including dredging and are a statutory planning consultee on anything affecting the river.  They are a partner in the massive London Gateway container port and own many of the jetties, quays and locks along the river.  They also have control of the tidal rivers entering the Thames such as Deptford Creek and Barkingside.  They are a major landowner.   

What is a Harbour Revision Order?

All UK ports must have a Harbour Plan approved by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) which is a branch of DEFRA.  The PLA was established in 1857 and since then there have only been two substantial amendments to its role, in 1908 and 1968.  In 1857 London was the busiest port in the world and the centre of trade in the British Empire.  By the 1968 revision London’s docks were in steep decline.  Since then wharves and warehouses have become desirable homes and commercial shipping has largely been replaced by leisure and tourist craft. The current Harbour Revision Order is a once in a generation chance to influence the role and practice of the PLA.  The many riverside groups that have objected to the current HRO contend that the PLA  has failed to take account of the new realities.

We only found out about the HRO accidently three years ago as no riverside residents groups were contacted either by the PLA or the MMO.  The PLA still believes that the only stakeholders are those involved in commercial shipping, not the thousands of people who live by the Thames.  Subsequently, the MMO has twice asked EGRA and other resident groups to retract our original submissions without any indication that any of the points we raised had been addressed – obviously we refused.   

How is an HRO conducted?

The HRO is like a very protracted Public Inquiry.  The PLA and the objectors present their cases before a High Court judge and can cross-examine each other’s witnesses.  Of course, one side has the financial resources to employ professional counsel while the other is made up of volunteers giving up their time to present a case. The process has been going on for over three years and although the hearing is now over it is likely to be months before a decision is handed down.  

Why is EGRA interested in the activities of the PLA?

EGRA has had a long-standing interest in the PLA since the attempt to build a cruise ship terminal at Enderby Wharf without any shore power.  We have subsequently been trying to get the PLA to install shore power at Greenwich Ship Tier at New Capital Quay where ships sit for up to 72 hours with their diesel engines running.  The PLA has come up with a whole range of excuses for not putting in shore power but we assume that the main reason is cost.  

Like many riverside groups, EGRA would like to see much more emphasis on environmental matters in the PLA’s future role.  Our chief concern is air quality - not just proper monitoring in appropriate locations (emissions from the funnels of a cruise ship need balcony level monitors) but also plans for abatement with the reinvestment of mooring fees into shore power and charging stations so that filthy marine diesel fumes are no longer allowed to breach the ULEZ because they are on the river and not on a road.  Water quality is also a significant problem – currently there is no check on the possible discharge of sulphuric acid from fuel scrubber tanks into the river.  Most alarmingly, we have recently learned that many boats are still permitted to discharge raw sewage into the river because there in no penalty for failing to fit holding tanks.     

What other issues have come to light during the HRO?

The HRO process has also highlighted the extraordinary range of things that the PLA attempts to get  riverside residents to pay for.  Balconies that overhang the river require a River Works Licence (RWL) in the same way that a moored barge would have needed a licence in days gone by and some of the backdated fees are eye-watering.  Culverts carrying rainwater runoff under new apartment blocks need a RWL like every Thames Water sewage outfall.  The PLA is even trying to pass the cost and responsibility for safety equipment like grab chains and ladders to property owners.    

Who regulates all this?

The HRO has exposed the confusing regulatory regime on the Thames.  If you are a resident, what do you do when you want to report noisy party boats late at night; find a dead dolphin on the foreshore (as I did); plan to organise a foreshore clean-up or are concerned about the plumes of smoke coming from the funnels of a cruise ship moored outside your flat?  The HRO heard constantly that this or that issue was not the responsibility of the PLA but rather of the Environment Agency, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, the local Council, the Canal and Rivers Trust, the International Maritime Organisation, the Police, the MMO or Port Health at the Corporation of the City of London?  A one-stop shop for reporting and getting information should be an immediate priority. 

What happens next?

The judge running the HRO should produce a report by the end of the year.  This should enable new conditions to be written into the HRO for the future but what the timetable is for this remains a mystery.  What we would like to see is:

• Environmental matters made a clear priority for all parts of the tidal Thames, not just some greenwashing projects on Essex marshes.

• Clear, consistent and reasonable charges for riverside paraphernalia or, better still, the PLA assuming responsibility for safety equipment and waiving the arcane fees for using the air above former moorings.

• A tougher regulatory regime for all craft using the river particularly with regard to emissions to air and water – at the moment the craft that do not infringe regulations get rewarded with cheaper fees but those that do infringe regulations suffer no penalty.

• A greater investment in green infrastructure to enable inland shipping to meet targets.   

• And lastly, we want all of us who live along the Thames and care about its future to be considered just as much stakeholders as someone who owns a party boat but lives far away.