It is a simple but important concept. Local authorities are managed by Officers who follow the policies of elected Councillors, thus delivering what the community wants.

Commercial companies essentially operate in the interests of shareholders, who often don’t even live in the country, let alone in the areas the company operates. Nobody really expects a private company to prioritise the wants and needs of local communities.

I believe that an unhealthy relationship exists in which Hampshire County Council has enabled Associated British Ports to do things that suit Associated British Ports. I have told Officers that I am unhappy about it. The community I represent suffers as a result. That is why I am calling it out.

There are bits of the jigsaw puzzle that can be seen and not easily hidden. This includes the land purchases and leases that mean ABP now controls vast holdings this side of the Solent and down the Waterside, from Eling wharf, down through Marchwood and of course Dibden Bay (which Officers won’t any longer call Dibden Bay but have used ABP’s term “Strategic Land Holding”). A clever bit of re-wording that seeks to remove the character and history of land which they still plan to develop for port use.

There has been much working behind the scenes for years including meetings and agreements between HCC and ABP which the public don’t know about and even I wasn’t aware of. The outcomes alway seem to favour ABP.

A prime example is the current planning application to widen a section of the A326. This involved lots of private meetings and has been marketed by HCC as a benefit to commuters, barely mentioning the fact that it is primarily a project to enable lorries to get in and out of Waterside ports for ABP’s benefit.

You might think that it would be reasonable for ABP to make a very substantial contribution towards the £173 million cost. It transpired that they would only need to 15% of it, which I thought was too little and challenged to no avail. The business case for the whole project was submitted to Government by HCC and approved (this is our money remember). Oddly, ABP didn’t in fact commit any funds, merely suggesting a loan up to the 15% if it gets permission.

I still don’t understand how Government can approve a business case that is only 85% funded, but there we are!

Another really odd aspect to this is that the planning application will be determined by Hampshire County Council itself. For sure, they will take into account what the District Council and National Park have to say, but I cannot say I am entirely comfortable that HCC decides it’s own application, especially when the consultation showed only about 50% public support for the scheme (propped up by convincing people down the Waterside that their journey times would be cut).

It must be very comfortable for ABP not to be visible and scrutinised by the planning process in the way that applicants normally are. They are the main beneficiaries. The public purse is paying for it all. HCC are both the applicants and the judges in what amounts to a very cosy relationship.

Perhaps you think I am being unfair or even paranoid about what’s happening ? A couple of weeks ago I enquired whether it would be possible to apply for funding to carry out an independent viability study for a safe walking and cycling route between Marchwood and Hythe. The funds are managed by HCC using government “Active Travel” money.

Surprise, surprise…. HCC tells me that I cannot have access to the funding and that it has been working with ABP, enabling them to commission a study. ABP have had the opportunity to provide a safe off road walking and cycling route for the past six years at least. I even walked the route with their Chief Executive who made all the right noises about how suitable it was and so much better than Hythe road, with all the traffic.

Again, I have told HCC that I am unhappy with this arrangement. We should not be surprised that the consultants that are commissioned by ABP come up with plans and recommendations that suit ABP….. a case of “Who pays the ferryman”. I know it must be very tempting for HCC Officers to offload a bit of work knowing that the organisation won’t exist in two years, but it isn’t right. HCC should be doing the commissioning…. in the public interest.