What legal options does a port have in relation to preventing a specific limited sale of port land that is to be used for e.g. residential development? There may be considerations for companies at the port that make noise, and otherwise?
This brings us back to the question of whether the divestment is in the port's interest. For autonomous ports, the pressure will be of a political nature, as the municipality (apart from a decision to discontinue port activities through local planning) cannot demand a specific divestment of the port. The same considerations apply in relation to limited company ports, although the municipality as a shareholder can (hypothetically speaking) demand that a proposal for divestment be considered at an extraordinary general meeting, but the risk that may result from the liability rules of the Companies Act and that the disposition may be contrary to the purpose of the Ports Act.
On the one hand, there is the consideration for existing businesses, where the port's tenants may be faced with a whole new set of complaints, as residents are more likely to complain about the noise, which can (quite effectively) hinder the activities of existing businesses (and the possibility of their expansion). It also requires that the municipality has the opportunity to designate conversion areas through local planning before noise-sensitive use (housing) can be designated in noise-sensitive areas - and that the municipality can demonstrate that the noise can be reduced to an acceptable level in local planning within a short number of years.
At the same time, the port's interests will not be safeguarded if areas are sold that could hinder the port's ability to develop. It is therefore in violation of the Port Act if the owner municipality (and the port) dispose of areas that hinder the port's opportunities for development and expansion in the long term.
In a case from 2007 about Vejle Municipality's strategic plan for the port of Vejle, the Danish Coastal Authority (formerly the competent authority) stated the following:
"With the preliminary decisions on the future of the Port of Vejle, as outlined above, there still seem to be reasonable development and expansion opportunities, especially as there still seems to be the possibility of an expansion east of the winding area. If, on the other hand, the PLOT plan is eventually implemented in its entirety, it seems that the port board and the city council are not taking the port's interests into account, because the commercial port will be "locked in" without the possibility of expansion in terms of area."
Finally, there may also be such contractual relationships between the port's tenants regarding, for example, access conditions or the like, which would mean that disposal and development for housing would be contrary to the port's interests (due to any additional financial costs associated with securing the infrastructure to which the tenants are entitled).
