News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos


Southampton Container Port needs Dibden Bay development, say bosses


IT’S the heartbeat of the Solent economy, supporting 77,000 jobs and generating £5.5 billion.

Since the dark days of the 1970s, Southampton docks has become a massive success story, growing to become one of the biggest cruise ports in the world and handling one fifth of the UK’s container traffic.

Despite the global recession, which has hit port business hard, docks bosses are predicting a huge surge in trade over the next 20 years.

There’s just one problem they say – they are running out of room.

As reported by the Daily Echo more than a month ago, port chiefs remain committed to controversial plans for a new container terminal on Dibden Bay.

Now, what amounts to a 130-page argument for the £600m project, ABP’s draft Port of Southampton Masterplan 2009, is to be unveiled to city businesses at the Port City Future’s conference at the Ocean Terminal today.

The research forecasts massive growth across all the three Cs – cars, containers and cruise ships.

By 2020, cruise passenger numbers are expected to more than double from the 2005 level to reach 1.49 million and to reach almost two million by 2030 – a whopping 173 per cent increase.

Click below to see a video of today's headlines in sixty seconds

Container numbers are also forecast to swell from 1.38 million in 2005 to 2.69 million in 2020 and a massive 4.2 million by 2030.

The number of cars crossing the quayside is also expected to climb from 724,000 today to 844,000 by 2030.

If you put it all together, the port handled a total of 44 million tonnes of cargo in 2007. By 2030, that will have soared to 62.6 million tonnes, according to ABP’s calculations.

The shape of the port we know today is likely to change dramatically to cope with this surge in business.

A fifth cruise terminal will be built to handle the latest megaships and the existing terminals expanded and upgraded to handle the unprecedented passenger numbers.

Up to three more multi-deck car compounds are set to spring-up in the Eastern and Western docks to free space from parked cars for other port business.

Finally, and most importantly, port bosses aim to get Dibden Bay up and running after 2021.

The plan for a huge new terminal employing 3,000 people and able to accommodate up to four of the very biggest ships afloat at any one time was famously rejected by a public enquiry in 2004 on environmental grounds.

That decision cost ABP £50m and the company changed strategy to make better use of its existing land in Southampton.

Now, the masterplan predicts they will finally run out of room by 2021 and calls for work to begin on the Dibden plan well ahead of then.

“By 2020, we consider it likely that the intensity of land use in the Eastern and Western docks will have increased to the point where the port will be approaching the practical limits of land use optimisation,”

the Masterplan warns.

“Our demand forecasts indicate that expansion beyond the operational port estate will become necessary between 2021 and 2027.

“As already noted, in terms of a planning time frame, it is clear that the detailed planning, design and specification involved will need to begin well before then.”

Port bosses see Dibden as the only site suitable for expansion, the plan reveals.

“In noting the recent successes of the Port of Southampton, it is important to acknowledge the debt owed to its founders and subsequent owners who left a legacy without which it would not have been possible to meet the huge challenges of the last few decades.

“Legacies, however, do not last forever. Several practical boundaries of the port have already been touched and finite constraints on capacity are well in sight.

“Since the mid-1960s consideration has been given on several occasions to the appropriate location for port expansion, should it be required.

“The common conclusion has been that land at Dibden Bay is not only the most suitable, but also the only option.”

By 2030, the plan envisages Dibden Bay handling between half a million and 800,000 containers, but that would quickly climb up to several million.

The environmental impact of the scheme, likely to be a key battleground in future planning negotiations, is this time central to ABP’s thinking.

“In identifying the Dibden reclaim as the only possible location for port expansion, ABP is fully aware of the nature conservation value of the site and the adjoining foreshore,” the Masterplan states.“Nature conservation is one of many considerations that will have to be borne in mind before it would be possible to begin to assemble a proposal for port development on the Dibden reclaim.

“The demand forecasts indicate that a detailed development proposal is not required for several years.

ABP intends to use this time to engage with key stakeholders.

“Specific consideration will be applied to the design of development proposals to identify the most sustainable way to accommodate the port’s expansion needs.”

Port boss Doug Morrison is determined to press ahead with the expansion plans.

“Our predecessors made far-sighted decisions to grow, consolidate and expand the port.

“The decisions made all those years ago are recognisably the foundation of the port’s contemporary success. For some time ABP has been following the same approach – long term investment to secure the port’s future. We intend to keep doing so.”


Comments(29)

joenice says...
3:11pm Mon 13 Jul 09

This port must be allowed to grow either that or face major job losses.

Thats the way I see it, and the more jobs the better for the city and surrounding area.

Forest Resident says...
3:57pm Mon 13 Jul 09

joenice wrote:
This port must be allowed to grow either that or face major job losses. Thats the way I see it, and the more jobs the better for the city and surrounding area.
Better for the city? Don't make me laugh!!! Dibden Bay isn't in the city though, it's in the New Forest and it certainly isn't of any benefit to this area whatsoever! Minimal long term jobs will be created by Dibden Bay as ports are becoming increasingly autonomised, also the landscape will forever be scarred and the local roads will be continually gridlocked (as they are at peak hours already!). As the container ships get bigger and bigger Dibden Bay would eventually become redundant anyway, as the ships would simply be unable to navigate Southampton Water! There is no real merit to this proposal other than corporate greed, as such I anticipate ABP will once again find themselves on the losing side and substantially out of pocket when this is thrown out. ABP really should have learnt their lesson and given up for good on this non starter.

geordie says...
4:06pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Forest Resident wrote:
joenice wrote: This port must be allowed to grow either that or face major job losses. Thats the way I see it, and the more jobs the better for the city and surrounding area.
Better for the city? Don't make me laugh!!! Dibden Bay isn't in the city though, it's in the New Forest and it certainly isn't of any benefit to this area whatsoever! Minimal long term jobs will be created by Dibden Bay as ports are becoming increasingly autonomised, also the landscape will forever be scarred and the local roads will be continually gridlocked (as they are at peak hours already!). As the container ships get bigger and bigger Dibden Bay would eventually become redundant anyway, as the ships would simply be unable to navigate Southampton Water! There is no real merit to this proposal other than corporate greed, as such I anticipate ABP will once again find themselves on the losing side and substantially out of pocket when this is thrown out. ABP really should have learnt their lesson and given up for good on this non starter.
Forest Resident - Just a couple of points.

Firstly, whilst you are correct that there will not be a huge amount of jobs within the terminal, there will be THOUSANDS of jobs created in supporting industries such as haulage, warehousing, freight forwarding etc.

Secondly, Dibden Bay will be designed to handle the largest ships afloat. There are plans to dredge and widen the main channel. ABP really would not invest if the terminal was going to sit unused. This will be a phased development that will track demand for container terminal capacity.

Dibden Bay is needed to secure the long term future of the port and it would be a tragedy if it was never developed.

Andy Locks Heath says...
4:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09

How can it be in the New Forest? You haven't been a resident for very long if that's what you think. And you aren't a New Forest resident either if you live in Marchwood. D.B. wasn't wasn't even dry land until the original "bay" was filled in with spoil from the Western Docks! Didn't you ever wonder why it's just a straight sea wall now? As for this regurgitated tripe about silting up and ship size, take a look at the locations of Antwerp and Rotterdam-Europoort two much larger competitor ports and then talk about suitable locations. They have more dredging and silting issues than DB but being progressive and positive they deal with them. You round of your rubbish with the tired old cliche about "Corporate Greed" So every time any company ever attempts to expand it's just corporate greed is it? If you know that little about economics you should refrain from commenting on it. as you are opposed to Dibden Bay let's hear sound logical reasoning that backs up your position and responds to the points made in DB's favour, not the same old stupid silly Nimbyish nonsense we've been hearing since you all got suckered by Hythe Marina Residents Association. How can you be that worried about your own house prices with all the development that has already occurred? Would you be happy to see Dibden Bay covered in yet more houses instead?

allsaintsnocurves says...
4:48pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Why can't they expand outwards into the ocean? There was plans for a pier to go out into the water.

They could build a walkway/bridge out to a new terminal. It would be much better to see all the big ships in and around the city centre otherwise what is the point?

veracity says...
4:53pm Mon 13 Jul 09

spot on andy
bet the lady didnt move to Marchwood until after thye Bay was filled in 'for port development'
and what is corporate greed. Is it profit? If so this is what all company's should aim at or should they all be philantropic organisations paying no tax to help contribute towards the country's finances.
I used to live over by the General and saw the amount of hospital;traffic build up year on year. Sometime you have to take a deep breath and at least try to look at any change from both sides.
Some of these Watersiders have closed their minds without looking at all the arguments

Brite Spark says...
5:01pm Mon 13 Jul 09

How about an ice rink?

Bartonian says...
5:07pm Mon 13 Jul 09

If they are short of space, then maybe they shouldn't have sold off the land around the eastern docks in the first place. I suppose one couldn't have forecasted this predicament then.

Dibden Bay = more Chinese imports and junk that the average British consumer doesn't need in the first place.

Forest Resident says...
5:38pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Marchwood, Dibden Bay, in fact the entire waterside from Totton to Calshot IS in the New Forest, and their residents have had New Forest District Council as their local authority for a great many years! Some parts of the waterside are NOT in the New Forest National Park though, which evidently shows a clear example of YOUR poor local knowledge Andy! Yes my view's are based on somewhat NIMBY aspects, but then again, I doubt anyone would want such an unnecessary development on their doorstep which would have no benefit for the immediate locality, and would undoubtedly reduce house prices amongst a great many other negative consequences. Recent industrial development in the area (power station, incinerator, refinery redevelopment) has virtually always occurred on brownfield sites previously occupied by similar industrial use, so there is no precident for such a large scale facility on the waterside as Dibden Bay. I have never harped on about Dibden Bay's origins (which I am well aware of), and couldn't give two hoots about Hythe Marina (which is prodiminantly 2nd homes!), however Dibden Bay WILL gridlock the waterside without a massive investment in roads infrastructure. The only benefit I can really expect from this potential development is a reduced council tax bill, and in all honesty i'd rather sacrifice the extra few quid (and even throw in a good chunk more) to help fund a decent barrister to see this proposed development killed off once and for all! Dibden Bay? -NO WAY!!!

Redback says...
6:13pm Mon 13 Jul 09

I ask from a position of total ignorance:

Would it be feasible for the whole lot to be shifted to the Bay? That would allow for the revitalisation that Southampton so desparately needs by opening up its waterways as public spaces.

Derek of Dibden Purlieu says...
7:05pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Redback wrote:
I ask from a position of total ignorance:

Would it be feasible for the whole lot to be shifted to the Bay? That would allow for the revitalisation that Southampton so desparately needs by opening up its waterways as public spaces.
More Public Spaces in Southampton? Is this a request on behalf of the rapists, perverts, muggers and junkies that inhabit the existing ones?

Linesman says...
7:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09

The present container port is handling less work, with fewer ships which has resulted in job losses.

ABP wants permission to develop Dibden Bay and, once given, will start work and then decide to turn it into another yaching marina - where the money is! Look at their 'future planning' and how it turned out in the old docks! Anyone for Harry Ramsden's?


veracity says...
7:20pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Forest Resident wrote:
Marchwood, Dibden Bay, in fact the entire waterside from Totton to Calshot IS in the New Forest, and their residents have had New Forest District Council as their local authority for a great many years! Some parts of the waterside are NOT in the New Forest National Park though, which evidently shows a clear example of YOUR poor local knowledge Andy! Yes my view's are based on somewhat NIMBY aspects, but then again, I doubt anyone would want such an unnecessary development on their doorstep which would have no benefit for the immediate locality, and would undoubtedly reduce house prices amongst a great many other negative consequences. Recent industrial development in the area (power station, incinerator, refinery redevelopment) has virtually always occurred on brownfield sites previously occupied by similar industrial use, so there is no precident for such a large scale facility on the waterside as Dibden Bay. I have never harped on about Dibden Bay's origins (which I am well aware of), and couldn't give two hoots about Hythe Marina (which is prodiminantly 2nd homes!), however Dibden Bay WILL gridlock the waterside without a massive investment in roads infrastructure. The only benefit I can really expect from this potential development is a reduced council tax bill, and in all honesty i'd rather sacrifice the extra few quid (and even throw in a good chunk more) to help fund a decent barrister to see this proposed development killed off once and for all! Dibden Bay? -NO WAY!!!
well done Forest resident. I actually have no probs with people owning up as NIMBY's and worried about traffic and house prices. This is an honest approach and one which ABP will have to address if they make another appraoch (in 10 yurs time I think)
Take issue with tou on 2 things.
One the Refinery was developed initially on farm land (so not on a brownfield site and has sustained the Waterside economy since then - question will it still be there in 10/20 yrs and if not how will this affect the waterside econmoy???)
Also Dibden Bay is not in the New Forest National Park as Andy was trying to say.

allsaintsnocurves says...
7:51pm Mon 13 Jul 09

To clear this argument up...It is fact that Southampton Water is a stretch of the sea north of the Isle of Wight and the Solent, in England. The city of Southampton lies at its most northerly point. Along its saltmarsh-fringed western shores lie the New Forest villages of Hythe and "the waterside", Dibden Bay, and the Esso oil refinery at Fawley. On the slightly steeper eastern shore are the Southampton suburb of Weston, the villages of Netley and Hamble-le-Rice, and the Royal Victoria Country Park. That about covers the lot.

It is therefore, technically part of the New Forest.

veracity says...
8:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09

yeah but think the argument is whether or not D Bay is within the recently drwan up N Forest National Park boundaries, which it's not
If it was within the boundaries devlopment would be much more difficult. As it stands another proposal can be put forward.

Sailor Steve says...
8:12pm Mon 13 Jul 09

The development land of Dibden Bay is not part of the New Forest National Park (Source = Ordnance Survey). The boundary runs along the edges of Dibden Bay. It is possible to build the terminal, the necessary rail and road links and dual the A326 without infringing on the NF National Park at all.

The Terminal would be a 'private company' profit making enterprise, but it would also be an important part of the UK's transport infrastructure in addition to the parallel support of and increase to local employment.

Most of the jobs created will be skilled and technical and hence valuable to the Southampton economic area's prosperity. The queue of traffic that moves from the Waterside to Southampton and back every day is testament to the existing link between Waterside prosperity and the Southampton based local economy.

S Pance says...
8:45pm Mon 13 Jul 09

The port owners sold off huge chunks of Southampton docks to developers back inthe 80's/90's in order to make HUGE amounts of money.

If they hadn't sold of these tracts of land they'd have more than enough space for expansion for the next 20 years or so!!

It is due to their lack of foresight, their mismanagement and the fact that they thought Dibden was a done deal that they are in this mess now.

Didbden should be REFUSED. Why should the port owners be bailed out when it is their dodgy decision that's put them in this position??

S Pance says...
8:47pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Dear Gareth Lewis

You seem to be very PRO this development, despite the Echo being anti last time around. Why is this?

Would you be good enough to declare if you have any pecunary interest in the development or whether any of your close aquaintances or relatives do..?

S Pance says...
8:54pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Redback wrote:
I ask from a position of total ignorance: Would it be feasible for the whole lot to be shifted to the Bay? That would allow for the revitalisation that Southampton so desparately needs by opening up its waterways as public spaces.
That, I believe is all part of their true masterplan.

Slowly shift everything over to Dibden, then claim they have too much land then sell off the old docks to developers..

It won't be used for parks just more flats and executive houses.

IF this plan goes ahead then it MUST be laid down in law that in the event of any over capacity then Dibden land will be vacated first.

If this were written into any proposal I think you'd find that their interest in the project suddenly waned..

It's all part of their plan to make a quick buck!

666wizard says...
9:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Sailor Steve wrote:
The development land of Dibden Bay is not part of the New Forest National Park (Source = Ordnance Survey). The boundary runs along the edges of Dibden Bay. It is possible to build the terminal, the necessary rail and road links and dual the A326 without infringing on the NF National Park at all. The Terminal would be a 'private company' profit making enterprise, but it would also be an important part of the UK's transport infrastructure in addition to the parallel support of and increase to local employment. Most of the jobs created will be skilled and technical and hence valuable to the Southampton economic area's prosperity. The queue of traffic that moves from the Waterside to Southampton and back every day is testament to the existing link between Waterside prosperity and the Southampton based local economy.
Sailor Steve - I agree.

As a Waterside resident, DB development (and the dredging it will always involve) will play havoc with the local wildlife, but will preserve Southampton as an expanding asset for the UK as a whole.

Ferries, container ships and cruise liners have to go somewhere, and Southampton is anchored at the hub of the southern UK road (and to a lesser extent rail) network. Coincentrating traffic in a focussed area such as DB and the existing Southampton Docks will minimise the eco effect elsewhere (IMO).

Most of the infrastructure is in place, it just needs some money spending to make it fit for the increased traffic. This would be funded by the increased revenue from the expanded and more efficient container port. On the back of this, improved road (dualed A326) and rail (re-open the Hythe branch line) would bring jobs, business and yes tourism to the Waterside area (most tourists go to Beaulieu etc via Lyndhurst... why?

Seems like some joined up thinking is needed here, by all means listen to the NIMBYs (for want of a better term), but look at the situation for the benefit of the whole area.

NFDC / HCC / SCC, consultation period? Yes it will cost some money but the results will benefit Southampton (and the Waterside and New Forest) for many years to come.

Andy Locks Heath says...
9:24pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Forest Resident - your second post was much more reasoned as Veracity said. When you focus on what the real problems would be for locals there is more chance that they will be addressed properly and the local residents concerns can be put at the top of the agenda. The RADBP approach was always "The answer is no. Now what is the question?" and that is why their support has evaporated this time round.

Nothing to say says...
10:25pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Just get on and build it.

Only in this part of the country would you get people trying to stop development and new jobs in a time of recession.

But then of course, we do have far too many utterly ignorant, selfish and pompous people in this area who don't give a toss about current and future generations and just want the Waterside to be ideal for them and them only.

Times like this that I wish this area wasn't so nice. Because then, we wouldn't have so many outsiders moving into it and thinking they own the whole bloody area.

BUILD DIBDEN BAY

666wizard says...
11:16pm Mon 13 Jul 09

Nothing to say wrote:
Just get on and build it. Only in this part of the country would you get people trying to stop development and new jobs in a time of recession. But then of course, we do have far too many utterly ignorant, selfish and pompous people in this area who don't give a toss about current and future generations and just want the Waterside to be ideal for them and them only. Times like this that I wish this area wasn't so nice. Because then, we wouldn't have so many outsiders moving into it and thinking they own the whole bloody area. BUILD DIBDEN BAY
More forcefully put than mine, but, yes.

By all means make sure the eco stuff is covered, not so sure about the NIMBY issues.

A community has to move forward.That sometimes means a bit of pain for someone. That is the way of life.

I live in the waterside and love it. Lets have a plan and make it all better!

thesaint says...
11:46pm Mon 13 Jul 09

i posted 3 weeks ago it would happen and it will get passed in time. ab ports will make sure that they will get government support and they will use the national interest .

Bartonian says...
8:51am Tue 14 Jul 09

DIBDEN BAY = MORE MOUNTAINS OF CHINESE JUNK & A HIGHER VISIBLE TRADE DEFICIT.

Andy Locks Heath says...
9:18am Tue 14 Jul 09

Bartonian wrote:
DIBDEN BAY = MORE MOUNTAINS OF CHINESE JUNK & A HIGHER VISIBLE TRADE DEFICIT.
Duh - It's not Dibden Bay that causes the trade defecit - it's consumer and industrial demand. If Dibden Bay isn't built the goods still come it via a hub port such as Rotterdam or Felixstowe. All we lose yet again is jobs and competitiveness and for nothing. I guess you are too selfish to worry about the job prospects of the next generation of school leavers but fortunately some of us think their future prosperity is our problem to solve. Dibden Bay Port makes no difference whatsoever to ultimate industrial demand for goods but it does make a massive difference to this regions economic prosperity. Perhaps you think Britain would be better off if we closed ALL our ports?

Bartonian says...
9:42am Tue 14 Jul 09

Get over it Andy boy. We live in a new world order where big business rules over all of us.

Bartonian says...
9:50am Tue 14 Jul 09

Nothing to say wrote:
Just get on and build it. Only in this part of the country would you get people trying to stop development and new jobs in a time of recession. But then of course, we do have far too many utterly ignorant, selfish and pompous people in this area who don't give a toss about current and future generations and just want the Waterside to be ideal for them and them only. Times like this that I wish this area wasn't so nice. Because then, we wouldn't have so many outsiders moving into it and thinking they own the whole bloody area. BUILD DIBDEN BAY
Nothing to say = stuck grammaphone record.

Ben Doone says...
7:40pm Wed 15 Jul 09

S Pance wrote:
Redback wrote: I ask from a position of total ignorance: Would it be feasible for the whole lot to be shifted to the Bay? That would allow for the revitalisation that Southampton so desparately needs by opening up its waterways as public spaces.
That, I believe is all part of their true masterplan. Slowly shift everything over to Dibden, then claim they have too much land then sell off the old docks to developers.. It won't be used for parks just more flats and executive houses. IF this plan goes ahead then it MUST be laid down in law that in the event of any over capacity then Dibden land will be vacated first. If this were written into any proposal I think you'd find that their interest in the project suddenly waned.. It's all part of their plan to make a quick buck!
SPance
This is indeed a point that has been made in the past and I recollect that someone high up in the RADB organisation claimed to have documentary proof that this was ABPs intention during the last (failed)development proposal.
I thought this rather a strange argument at the time. ABP (generally) and DPW (at the container port)have invested millions in recent years in the Soton operation and ABP has signed long term contracts with a variety of customers. If I was running ABP and wanted to sell land off to developers for a quick buck!! (which would be v difficult in todays economic climate) I would seek to develop Dibden Bay for non port activity. The local residents may well prefer this to a container port I humbly suggest.
Also it is worth bearing in mind ABP are owned primarily by Canadian Pension Funds who should be looking for a long term return on their investment. Land sale is great for the short term but is less beneficial when you have long term pension obligations to meet. So I don't think your argument holds water.


Dibden Bay

Most popular






Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »

Local Businesses