§ Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his approval of the proposed construction by Shell of a permanent gas extraction platform within the boundaries of the internationally-recognised deep water route 60 miles north-east of Cromer.
§ Mr. David MitchellThe 1958 international convention on the continental shelf, to which the United Kingdom is a party, says that installations should not be established where interference may be caused to the use of recognised sea lanes essential to international navigation; and, under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949—and the Continental Shelf Act 1954—the prior written consent of my right hon. Friend is required before any works are constructed in tidal waters that may adversely affect the safety of navigation. Such works include oil and gas extraction rigs, whether temporary of permanent.
Shell, leading a consortium with other companies, is developing a gas field that is within the United Kingdom continental shelf and which adjoins the western branch of the IMO-approved deep water route that caters for traffic moving between the eastern end of the English Channel 760W and the German Bight in a north-easterly and southwesterly direction. The consortium is building a permanent platform that has been designed to rest on the seabed about 400 metres within the boundary of the western branch of this deep water route. This would reduce the route width from 4.8 to 4.2 miles.
Shell, because of a misunderstanding within the company, did not apply for my right hon. Friend's statutory consent for this structure until a very large sum had been spent on it.
I decided in the circumstances that the safety of navigation would not be significantly affected, and that the United Kingdom's economic interests would be sensibly served, if the project were to go ahead as planned, and I gave consent accordingly. M reaching this conclusion I had regard to the fact that there have already been much more substantial encroachments on the eastern branch of the route by Dutch platforms.
I am satisfied that the omission to secure this consent at a much earlier stage was a genuine oversight and that there is no reason to think that it will happen again. The company's experience in offshore development is such that it is wholly familiar with the law's requirements. None the less, I wish to make it clear that in the normal course the Government will not be prepared to consent to offshore developments that adversely affect the safety of navigation.