On Dibden Bay, no one can hear you scream (From Daily Echo)
When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
On Dibden Bay, no one can hear you scream
4:55pm Monday 6th July 2009 in Hampshire Business
Dibden Bay
WHO WOULDN’T WANT A major employer creating thousands of well paid jobs in their community?
A golden cascade of job opportunities and wealth creation spreading out across the region.
With unemployment racing towards three million in the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, who could be so foolish as to snub such a gilt-edged offer?
Your local council. That’s who.
ABP, the company that owns Southampton docks, has faced opposition from astonishing corners to its plan for a new container terminal on reclaimed land at Dibden Bay.
Bosses have been forced into battle for the key project on no fewer than five separate occasions.
The score is 4-1 to ABP, with the taxpayer left counting the cost and lawyers the only real winners.
Unfortunately, the loss was the one that mattered: The big one, the public enquiry that went right down to the wire before Whitehall backed the birds over jobs in 2002.
Whatever the outcome, on almost every occasion the most vehement opponents have been local authorities charged with the wellbeing of their communities.
Let’s remember these £600m plans are estimated to create 3,000 jobs and ultimately double the capacity of the container port, which supports thousands more.
And yet, since the birds kicked Dibden out of the nest, local mandarins have not sat idle in their bid to banish the plans to the history books.
Like an assassin in the night, their attacks come subtle out of the shadows.
First they tried and failed to rule it out by including it in the boundary of the national park.
Second, the Countyside Agency tried to create public rights of way across it.
Then, Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton councils teamed up with the New Forest Park National Authority and sneakily left the site out of an obscure minerals and waste plan. ABP challenged the decision in the High Court and won a thumping victory at a cost to the taxpayer that’s still to be determined but looks likely to run to hundreds of thousands of pounds.
And now there’s this latest bid (see page opposite) by New Forest District Council to “design out” the containers until 2030 by craftily omitting the idea from its snappily titled Local Development Framework Core Strategy. Not so crafty as it turns out, after they were forced into a humiliating climb-down, proposing new wording through gritted teeth grudgingly recognising the site’s strategic importance.
It’s mind boggling.
If this were the heart of the New Forest, I’d understand such vehement opposition but it’s on a few miles of coast already boasting a Military port, a power station and the biggest oil refinery in Europe.
It’s an industrial landscape and the site has been marked out for port development for decades.
What’s the problem?
In truth it’s the wealthy denizens of the Waterside’s lush towns and villages. Many of them are elderly and looking only for a quiet life on the waterfront. For them, jobs and business are other people’s problem as they while away their pensions.
Now ABP has put its cards on the table and confirmed it intends to return to the Bay, it is up to us, those of us who are years from the simple pleasures of retirement, to convince our politicians to support jobs and investment rather than birds and the nimbys.
Comments(21)
mercrocker
says...
6:44pm Wed 8 Jul 09
S Pance
says...
9:37am Thu 9 Jul 09
If they hadn't done this there'd still be more than enough land in the existing port to meet their needs for the next 20-30 years.
It was the wrong strategic decision by ABP, pure and simple.
Why should the residents of the NF be made to pay for their corporate incompetence?
NickB
says...
11:02pm Thu 9 Jul 09
geordie
says...
9:06am Fri 10 Jul 09
I'm fed up of people bringing up the totally irrelavant facts that several decades ago we tore down the redundant Ocean Terminal and turned other parts of the docks into a Marina etc etc. The fact is that containers are without doubt the future of shipping. We are in a recession now and volumes are down at Southampton, but that won't last forever. Dibden Bay is a long term project that would be developed over time to meet demand. The simple choice we have to make is - Do we want the jobs here in Hampshire? Or should we let the jobs go to the London or the continent? I would personally rather stay working here in Southampton.
martin1946
says...
9:33am Fri 10 Jul 09
I can inform him, far from needing to expand, ABP has made 10% of it's container base employees redundant in the last 12 months.
As someone who worked on the dock for many years, though fortunately not directly in the employ of ABP, I can also tell him from my experience ABP have little interest whatsoever in local people. In my experience they also have little regard for the safety of their employees or indeed visitors to the docks, I am aware of at least three fatalities during my time working on ABP's western dock. ABP are dreadful employers,far from offering it's workforce the security of permanent jobs, a large proportion of it's employees are hired on a casual basis, this in part is to deny it's workforce the health & safety protection of union representation. Mr Lewis I can assure you ABP is interested in one thing only and that is pure and simply revenue. Perhaps if you took the time to find out more about ABP as a company and as an employer you might reconsider your article and offer a more balanced view.
AdrianSmith
says...
6:23pm Fri 10 Jul 09
If it was fair and balanced it would be a news report - which this blatantly isn't.
I would have thought that's fairly obvious to absolutely anyone unless they are complete numpties.
Ben Doone
says...
9:38pm Fri 10 Jul 09
May I comment as follows:
MerCrocker: The old Ocean Terminal was a wonderfully iconic building but entirely unsuitable for modern cruise shipping. Demolition in the mid 80's provided space for regular RO/RO trade to the benefit of the port and local economy. If you were to visit the old 7 Dry Dock today you will see this v active as a general cargo/bulk berth
Spance - I am sure, with the benefit of hindsight, ABP regret selling off the Ocean Village site, as the storage space may have been useful but these berths were built in the 1840's and not suitable for modern large vessels.
However there is actually now more port acerage available now than in the 1990's.
Also look at ports in Liverpool, London, Cardiff, Newcastle, Bristol, Portsmouth, Chatham, Glasgow, Hull etc etc. All of these have sold off original port areas which have been deemed unsuitable for modern port activity.
Nick B - I am sure ABP are not looking to develop Dibden
Bay right now, more like 10 yrs hence when global trade is forecast to be back on track. Like every business they have to react to current economic challenges and cut back on major costs ie staff.
Lets not forget that Dibden Bay was created (yes created.. in the 1950's/1960's) by the old BTDB for 'Future Port Development'. It was provided for port use before the vast majority of local residents moved in to the Waterside area!!!
Martin point of detail here, the redundancies at the container terminal were the responsibility of DPW, who operate the Container Terminal and their contractors, SCPS. ABP do not employ anyone at the Container terminal altho, to be fair, ABP have made reundancies elsewhere in the port
I have no particular brief for ABP but they are no different to any other employer in todays economic climate. Yes they are there to make money and yes they look to reduce cost when times are hard.
I have had to do this in the course of my business.
Horrible but sometimes necessary to protect the business.
Unfortunately this is a harsh fact of life.
I also agree with you that ABP, and other port employers, both in Soton and elsewhere in the world, use Agency workers.
Port activity is quite seasonal. Generally more labour is required in the summer, especially in a very successful cruise port, than the winter. So it would be economic suicide to employ a full compliment of workers for 52 weeks of the year when there is only regular work for say 6 months.
As for Health & Safety, my company was actually responsible for a full Uk port audit not so long ago and can confirm that ABP, as a company, ranked v highly compared to the industry norm, so would be interested to learn of the 3 operational deaths you mention.
Finally I can sympathise with residents of the Waterside concerned about additional port facilities on their side of the water.
What irritates me, I have to say, is the inability to listen to both sides of the argument. Believe me there are positives as well as negatives.
Best wishes to all and lets have a reasoned debate please which,hopefully, the Echo is trying to stimulate
martin1946
says...
2:15am Sun 12 Jul 09
Mr Lewis's position as business editor should ensure he at all times does his utmost to tell readers the truth, to the best of his ability.
The article he presented didn't read like a personal comment at all, it bears the hallmarks of a piece copied and pasted directly from an ABP propaganda document.
Like the majority of the city's residents I would welcome the arrival of permanent well paid jobs that Mr Lewis speaks of but the reality is, ABP will not offer such prospects, at best what will be on offer will be temporary employment with employees payed the national minimum wage, much as they are now.
It's true ABP use several different company names for operations within the dock area and indeed beyond but it seems to me the parent company in the majority of cases is in fact ABP.
If as Ben says ABP in Southampton ranked highly in health and safety league tables, I welcome such positive news, however I'm inclined to question what is deemed as the acceptable national norm.
As I stated previously, I used to work at the docks in Southampton and also have experience of working at many other British ports. By the very nature of it's business docks can be extremely dangerous environmments to be in.
The fatalities I referred to in Southampton can in my view be at least partly attributed to poorly supervised health and safety standards.
Health and safety it would appear is way down ABP's list of priorities.
Ben Doone
says...
1:22pm Sun 12 Jul 09
We are probably moving way from the main topic but, to ensure other readers have the correct facts to hand,I need to clarify a couple of the points you make.
Re the important topic of Health & Safety. Ports are potentially dangerous places but,statistically, there are far more dangerous industries to work within.
The first year port stats were documented (1896) there were 71 deaths in total.The figure reduced to between 40-60 per annum in the 1950/1960's when the Docks were covered by the Factories Act Legislation. More recently fatalities for ALL UK ports reduced to 9 in 2005/6, 4 in 2006/7 and 3 in 2007/8.I believe these figures include 'operational'casualt
ies. It is fair to point out that there are far fewer people working on port operations now than in the past, due to mechanisation,but ports are under far greater scrutiny from the HSE and this has improved safety discipline for all concerned.
I recollect there were 2 unfortunate deaths on motor cycles in the Western Docks a couple of years ago, which the Police and HSE investigated and put down to operator error.
ABP is no different from any major port company. The HSE are extremely unforgiving if their many rules and regulations are breached. The HSE's local office is in Basingstoke which enables their Officers to call into Southampton (and any other S Coast port I should add) v easily.
Any breach of HSE rules would leave Directors of any Port related company (incl ABP) subject to personal prosecution, heavy fine and imprisonment.
Believe me, this concentrates the mind wonderfully.
In summary therefore your comment on ABP's stance, or in fact any port related company, is v wide of the mark.
Also re company ownership, ABP are responsible for the port area and also act as the Harbour Authority and directly employ staff to carry out this function. They also own one of the ports stevedoring company's (ABP Connect who primarily service thbe RO/RO ships)
ABP also own 49% of the Container Terminal but the major shareholder, DPW, own the majority share and employ all the full time staff there.
I hope this clarifies the points raised.
I understand that ABP do not enjoy the best of reputations in some quarters but, in my experience, port owners throughout the world have to deal with similar criticisms.
martin1946
says...
2:59pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Incredibly the HSE had recently given that particular crane safety clearance.
Ben as you say we are now way off topic but in answer to your most recent post, re the two biker fatalities.
I wouldn't wish to discuss those cases here as it's possible the families of the deceased read this forum, the last thing I would want to do is cause them any further distress.
As you indicated however ABP as the Harbour Authority are responsible for the port area, including I assume the adherance to and enforcement of traffic regulations on the ports roadways by it's agents.
From your knowledgable statements of facts and figures etc, I am inclined to believe that one way or another you are associated with ABP and/or the HSE.
So maybe you can enlighten me, why it is the HSE through ABP's agents appear to turn a blind eye to the many unlit trucks shunting containers around the port after dark, some of the drivers also consider it unneccessary to engage the twistlocks to secure the containers.
Let's hope this isn't another (operator error) accident waiting to happen.
Ben I assure you, however well intentioned the HSE or ABP are, the Health and Safety standards are not as you or I would wish them to be and are cause for concern.
This morning's' serious accident on the port is another reminder should we need it, that there is no room for complacency
Ben Doone
says...
7:58pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Have just seen the news of this awful accident and share your concerns about the crane driver and his family and wish for a speedy and complete recovery. I had the unfortunate experience of witnessing first hand a fatality at work many years ago and the trauma of that event still lives with me.
Some serious questions will have to be asked about todays incident, and indeed how this may, or may not, tie in with the previous crane collapse.
There have been unexplained metal fatigue issues on port cranes in other parts of the world and recently two cranes collapsed on different building sites in the same north of england city in the same week.
Whilst I have spent a good deal of my time in the transport industry, I neither work for the HSE nor ABP so cannot comment on the running of trucks without lights. However if this is a regular occurrence I would urge you to contact the relevant authorities. In my experience such observations are taken seriously.Finally altho I believe most reputable companies (and I would put ABP and other large port operating companies in this category) spend a good deal of time promoting good HSE practices,there has to be a significant degree of personal responsibility. Last week, for example, a colleague witnessed a near miss on the A34 when the driver of a large, liveried,truck almost lost control at a roundabout whilst talking on a mobile. I know for a fact that this company's drivers are given written instructions not to use mobile phones at the wheel.
Driving without lights and with twistlocks disengaged is also v dangerous and, I suspect, against relevant company rules.
martin1946
says...
10:00am Tue 14 Jul 09
However I think we are going to have to agree to disagree about the H&S standards in operation at the port of Southampton.
If you haven't already, please read the comments posted in response to the Echo's collapsed crane article.
Many of the remarks are written by dock employees both past and present.
Whilst what is written doesn't surprise me, what you will read is shockingly damning of the equipment the workforce are expected to operate and the poor standards of maintenance of the machinery they work with.
I take no pleasure in saying I told you so but it kind of endorses my views as to the seriousness of the H&S situation within the docks, it's simply not good enough.
I take you back to the headline of the original article;
WHO WOULDN’T WANT A major employer creating thousands of well paid jobs in their community?
Well, it depends how responsible the employer offering those jobs is and judging by contributions made by past and present employees, it is clearly not in their opinion, worthy of our trust.
with respect, Martin1946
D'Arcy Sarto
says...
3:51pm Tue 14 Jul 09
I know that Lewis is deliberately trying to be controversial but it really was a very amateurish attempt from what i would hope is an experienced journalist.
Whats the next piece going to be then..B52 Bomber found on the Moon?
Yawn....
Ben Doone
says...
8:23pm Tue 14 Jul 09
Indeed it is good to share a debate where views may differ but the exchanges are conducted in an adult way.
I have to say that the safety of workers must always be an imperative and if there has been a lack of maintenance and/or investment then those responsible must be taken to task.
However a quick read thro the comments on this incident, the majority seem to come from workers wives and ex employees who may have their own agenda. Interestingly I was once involved in Oil Rig operations where the level of Health & Safety was extremely high. Unfortunately there were unforseen incidents both on the rig and the helicopter journeys. Most adverse comments came from relatives and ex employees. Only a professional examination of the circumstances can establish the facts. I also happen to think that Esso are a very responsible employer but incidents have occured both to their own employees and contracted-in staff at Fawley. However if Esso were to disappear from the Waterside the effect on the local economy would be significant.
My thoughts continue to be with the cranedriver and his loved ones
Best wishes, Ben
Mac Ince
says...
3:08pm Wed 15 Jul 09
I’ll be quick dissecting this article, as the author clearly hasn't spent his time researching it.
Instead of tending to the symptoms of “the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression”, as Lewis puts it, i.e. the unemployment, why don’t we try and stem it from happening again?
Firstly, we are in the recession because people feel the need to spend money (they don’t have) on items shipped in from the ports. Secondly, if we bought more produce locally, we wouldn’t have to depend so much on the ports.
The wildlife that lives in Dibden Bay is infinitely more important than our appetite for cheap, tacky produce shipped over from China. Like Lewis’ suit. :)
veracity
says...
5:48pm Wed 15 Jul 09
Soton has been a port since the Middle ages and it exports as well as imports goods. as someone said in another post at evety stage of port development in soton prosperity has increased.
what is the wildlife that exisats on D Bay and where did it live prior to the bay being filled in.
i live in a built up urban area...... Thers are plenty of foxes, birds, insects, deer and other wild life both four legged and two (some of the latter proabably need a cull)
Suppose we could all sit at home and trade electronically like the financial institutions. That would solve a lot of problems perhaps
Flackster
says...
12:04pm Mon 20 Jul 09
They'll build a new dock area, then in 5 or 10 years sell it all off to property developers for poncey flats.
If they want to permanently rip up a green area for dock developments, they should have to sign a contract to guarantee the jobs they are promising for 30 years or lose the land.
That way they can have the land, but unless they can keep the people employed, they won't get the benefit of prime waterfront to sell on to residential developers.
veracity
says...
7:26pm Tue 21 Jul 09
Longer term more profitr in regular income from portd than selling off land for development. Sure het learnt their lesson over O Village but ports not particularly profitable then and many ports have sold off old port areas
Baileydog
says...
11:42pm Tue 21 Jul 09
Ben Doone
says...
12:20pm Wed 22 Jul 09
May I comment on your points. Re Foreign labour. Have a degree of sympathy for your view but this is an assumption. If Dibden Bay is developed, as planned, it will be 10/20 yrs hence so it is not possible, at this stage, to be so sure who will be involved in the contruction. Irish labour has historically been invloved in many of the great capital projects in the UK, which undoubtedly caused issues at the time, but the legacy has been benficial to future generations of UK citizens.
Also in the past 2 yrs I reckon there have been 5 or 6 major capital projects in the Port costing between £50-£70m at a rough guess. If anyone from ABP or the contracting companies are reading this, it would be intersting to learn how much foreign labour was involved. Anecdotal info given to me suggests very little so your assertion on foreign labour may not be correct.
I think it is also fair to reiterate that Dibden Bay is reclaimed land, flat & featureless with minimal woodland.It was reclaimed for future port development in the 1960's
The adjoining areas of the Waterside are fairly densely populated (and most people would have moved in after Dibden Bay was reclaimed)with a reasonable amount of existing industrial activity. It is not part of the 'New Forest' as such and remains outside the boundaries of the NForest National Park
Again I sympathise with your view that areas within the New Forest Park should be protected but,to my mind, Dibden Bay certainly does not fit into this category.
btw I think the idea of a tunnel rather than a bridge has been considered at stage. Monumentally expensive in my view but worth a look altho previous plans were to move most containers by rail which would probably rule out the bridge/tunnel idea.
Best of luck with your own business, it can't be easy for many small businesses at the moment
joenice says...
11:32am Tue 7 Jul 09
My old employer went into admin, in these times and it has been very very hard finding work.
ABP has my full support and support from the majority.