When news happens, text SDE and your photos or videos to 80360. Or contact us by email and phone.
2:52pm Monday 13th July 2009 in
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.
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)
Forest Resident
says...
3:57pm Mon 13 Jul 09
joenice wrote: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.
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.
geordie
says...
4:06pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Forest Resident wrote:Forest Resident - Just a couple of points.
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.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
4:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09
allsaintsnocurves
says...
4:48pm Mon 13 Jul 09
veracity
says...
4:53pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Brite Spark
says...
5:01pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Bartonian
says...
5:07pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Forest Resident
says...
5:38pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Redback
says...
6:13pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Derek of Dibden Purlieu
says...
7:05pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Redback wrote:More Public Spaces in Southampton? Is this a request on behalf of the rapists, perverts, muggers and junkies that inhabit the existing ones?
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.
Linesman
says...
7:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09
veracity
says...
7:20pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Forest Resident wrote: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)
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!!!
allsaintsnocurves
says...
7:51pm Mon 13 Jul 09
veracity
says...
8:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Sailor Steve
says...
8:12pm Mon 13 Jul 09
S Pance
says...
8:45pm Mon 13 Jul 09
S Pance
says...
8:47pm Mon 13 Jul 09
S Pance
says...
8:54pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Redback wrote:That, I believe is all part of their true masterplan.
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.
666wizard
says...
9:10pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Sailor Steve wrote:Sailor Steve - I agree.
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.
Andy Locks Heath
says...
9:24pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Nothing to say
says...
10:25pm Mon 13 Jul 09
666wizard
says...
11:16pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Nothing to say wrote:More forcefully put than mine, but, yes.
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
thesaint
says...
11:46pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Bartonian
says...
8:51am Tue 14 Jul 09
Andy Locks Heath
says...
9:18am Tue 14 Jul 09
Bartonian wrote: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?
DIBDEN BAY = MORE MOUNTAINS OF CHINESE JUNK & A HIGHER VISIBLE TRADE DEFICIT.
Bartonian
says...
9:42am Tue 14 Jul 09
Bartonian
says...
9:50am Tue 14 Jul 09
Nothing to say wrote:Nothing to say = stuck grammaphone record.
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
Ben Doone
says...
7:40pm Wed 15 Jul 09
S Pance wrote:SPance
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!
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search for jobs with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Find the right person for you with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for homes with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
Search for cars with the Daily Echo
Search Now »
joenice says...
3:11pm Mon 13 Jul 09
Thats the way I see it, and the more jobs the better for the city and surrounding area.