Leading London lawyers have warned that plans to transfer crude oil between tankers near precious environmental sites in the Highlands, should be abandoned or face legal action
Four members of community campaign group Cromarty Rising instructed the high profile firm, Bindmans LLP, to review the evidence they have collated against the application by the Cromarty Firth Port Authority (CFPA) to transfer up to 8.4million tonnes of oil a year between ships at sea.
The tankers would anchor at the mouth of the Cromarty Firth where dolphins swim and close to numerous designated conservation sites. The closest community is Cromarty, at the north east tip of the Black Isle, where local residents fear the environmental catastrophe an oil spill could herald, destroying wildlife tourism in its wake.
Bindmans specialise in human rights cases and public law and are currently representing the junior doctors in England and Wales, in their campaign against the UK Government’s attempts to change their contract.
The legal concerns identified by Bindmans particularly relate to potential breaches of the European Habitats Directives, which protected endangered species. They have been set out in a seven-page letter sent by Bindmans to the UK Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling.
But Bindmans have sent a further letter to the port authority inviting them to withdraw the application or face “a range of legal options including the possibility of judicial review.”
The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) is currently considering whether to grant the port authority a licence to conduct the oil transfers. A wide range of bodies have objected, such as Whale and Dolphin Conservation, the Scottish Wildlife Trust and RSPB Scotland. The last recently won a notable victory in a judicial review of the Scottish Government consenting to offshore windfarms in the Firth of Forth.
A spokesman for Cromarty Rising said, “This is not about NIMBYISM: transfers of oil have been undertaken for years in the relatively safety of the nearby Nigg Jetty and we would have no objection to them continuing to take place there with the correct controls in place. This is about fighting the wrong development in the wrong place.
"The proposed anchorages are right in the middle of the bottlenose dolphin feeding and breeding grounds. We want to protect the waters around us for future generations and are supportive of sustainable development. This proposal threatens the viability of the dolphin population and many other aspects of the local environment. It is up to us to provide a voice for those who cannot argue for their place in the sea – the whales, dolphins and seabirds of the inner Moray Firth”
The most recent petition against the transfers has now gained in excess of 16,000 signatures and a crowdfunding page started to help foot the significant legal costs that will be incurred in bringing a judicial review has already raised over £2000.
The spokesman said campaigners sincerely hoped that the CFPA would seriously reconsider this application and work constructively with its stakeholders for the sustainable development of the Firth.
"If they choose not to, then we are digging in for a long fight and are prepared to throw the full weight of the law at them. Make no mistake, we are well organised and committed and will work tirelessly until the application is either withdrawn or thrown out. We view the letter as an opportunity for the authority to withdraw gracefully and reset the clock on the relationship with the communities they serve,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the port authority confirmed the letter from Bindmans had been received, but said "As this correspondence may be subject to future legal proceedings we are unable to comment further."
Scottish Green Party MSP for the Highlands and Islands, John Finnie said:
“I hope the Cromarty Firth Port Authority and the Secretary of State will take this evidence seriously. Risky ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Moray Firth are unnecessary, and put both our natural heritage and our marine economy in danger.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel