The City-Port Commission, neighborhood forum and environmentalist, maintains its firm objective of not agreeing to “not a single agreement of the Port Authority of Valencia (APV) related to the macro-project to expand the port of Valencia”.
In line with this line of opposition to an infrastructure that this citizens’ platform considers “unnecessary, harmful to the environment, allocating vast public resources that are diverted from more pressing needs and that harm the city’s image”. devalues”, has filed this week two new controversial administrative appeals against the PAV’s recent agreements.
In particular, one related to the approval of the construction project for the container dock of the northern extension of the Port of Valencia and the other against an administrative concession in favor of Balearía for the construction and operation of a public passenger terminal between the docks. Turia breakwater west and north of Valencia port.
These resources are independent of the one that has been decided at the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid on the position of the parent body of the project, which has already agreed with the civil forum, as a precautionary measure, which paralyzed the processing of the project Is.
Furthermore, with regard to the administrative concession agreement for the construction and operation of a passenger terminal, the Ceuta-Port Commission has requested the Court to adopt a precautionary measure to suspend the execution of this agreement for lack of an environmental assessment. consider any further that a possible assessment sentence would lose its effectiveness, given that the legal right it is intended to protect, ie the health of the environment and neighboring population, would already have been harmed if the concession Works keep growing. The approval, moreover, was produced without modifying the delimitation of port spaces and uses, as requested by the General Directorate of the Coast in its report.
According to the organization, “in this process popular action in environmental matters is European directives (in particular, Aarhus Convention) access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters; And thus public action referred to the risk of air pollution and environmental impact assessment are used, both of which are subject to challenge through the aforementioned popular action.
And it is that, according to the Comisio Ciutat-Port, “the PAV intends to transfer the location of the passenger terminal from the northern extension, to the new dock which is now being reused to generate a large container esplanade (and whose The intention of the award requested MSC Shipping Company), to the south, at the site where the shipyards of Union Naval de Valencia, S.A. (a company belonging to the Boluda Group) used to operate, between the Poniente dock and the Turia breakwater”. All of this “is in open contradiction to the current delimitation of ports and uses of Valencia and the current Master Plan of the Port of Valencia and without environmental assessment.”
This change of location and use “has a significant adverse effect on the environment because of the Natzeret neighborhood to the south, which has long been subject to port pressure, and which will impact the environment due to the new location’s increased berthing of large ships.” and derived from the mobility of cruise tourists while visiting the city”.
The Ciutet-Port Commission, in its interposition brief, denounced that with its agreements the Port Authority of Valencia “tries to circumvent the logical process that has practical practical consequences by avoiding the obligation to evaluate decisions that that, considered together, could have important consequences on the environment.
It is also worth asking whether the Port Authority of Valencia has made a concession “without modifying the infrastructure master plan and to carry out a delineation of the port space and an environmental assessment” according to the Comissio Ciutat-Port. This action “may compromise the adoption of corrective measures and the establishment of compensatory measures which should be the responsibility of the operator of the concession.”
“We are faced with a decision prior to the environmental assessment, which has been adopted without considering the most important environmental aspect of air pollution and its effects on the residents of the Natzeret neighborhood. The lack of environmental assessment implies a complete void of the concession”, condemns the forum.