Wildlife charities applaud Government rejection of Tipner West plans

Wildlife charities applaud Government rejection of Tipner West plans - Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the RSPB applaud the Government in taking firm action to protect important sites for nature from destruction by once again rejecting Portsmouth City Council’s proposals for Tipner West, bringing months of uncertainty to an end. This sends a clear and positive message that development must be planned in ways that protect and support nature, and not to its cost.

An aerial view of Tipner West, a peninsula located in the north-west of Portsea Island, Portsmouth. — Aerial view of Tipner West © Strong Island

Since 2019, charities including Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the RSPB have campaigned to scrap or reshape the Portsmouth City Council’s development plans for Tipner West, warning of substantial and unnecessary ecological damage while putting forward alternative visions that work with nature instead of against it.

The southern part of Tipner West and its surrounding mudflats and other marine habitats are very special places, being designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), a Special Protection Area (SPA), and a Ramsar Site, recognising their exceptional ecological value.

In February, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, Angela Rayner MP, rejected the scheme, concluding that the claimed public benefits of the development do not override the significant ecological damage it would have caused at Tipner West. Both Hampshire & Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust and the RSPB hailed that ruling as a major victory for wildlife.

But, under pressure of a potential legal challenge from the Council, the Government later withdrew this opinion and announced it would reconsider the case, a sudden U-turn that reignited fears Tipner West’s internationally important habitats could once again be put at risk.

Following a fresh assessment, the Secretary of State has now reaffirmed the original conclusion: the public benefits of the development still do not outweigh the serious environmental damage. 

The opinion pointed to the direct loss of more than six hectares of intertidal and terrestrial habitat, disturbance to internationally important bird populations, and increased recreational pressure from new housing, applying “substantial” weight to the direct destruction of the protected habitats. 