£150m port plan for Southampton docks gets go ahead

Crunch day for £150m port plan Crunch day for £150m port plan

Southampton port has been given the go ahead for a £150m expansion bringing 200 jobs.

After months of delays due to legal challenges and red tape a government agency has confirm the project to increase the size of berths at the container terminal can go-ahead.

It will ensure the container terminal’s future competitiveness and safeguard 800 direct jobs and 1,200 indirect jobs.

Port owner ABP wants to combine the existing berths 201 and 202 alongside an upgraded 500m quay wall.

An increase in the length of container ships has meant the current deep-sea berths, 204 to 207, can no longer handle four of the next generation of container vessels at once.

The Marine Management Organisation has this afternoon given the go ahead for dredging and upgrade works to begin.

ABP rival Hutchinson Ports, owners of Felixstowe, forced a reassessment of the scheme when it launched a judicial review of an earlier consent ago on environmental grounds.

Hampshire MPs have been lobbying the Government for a quick resolution to the hold-ups to avoid fatal delays for Southampton.

Port director Doug Morrison said the decision was vital so contracts could be awarded for work to start in tight time window this September.

Otherwise they could be delayed for another year.

The major works must be carried out between September and March to avoid disturbing migratory Atlantic salmon.

Mr Morrison said if a decision went beyond April it would have put the port in an “impossible situation.”

The MMO said it had approved licences for ABP Southampton for works and associated dredging at Berths 201 and 202 at the port of Southampton.

It said details of the licences and the evidence behind the MMO’s decision making process would be made available shortly .

Chris Lewis, managing director of DP World Southampton, the operator of Southampton’s container terminal, said: “This is fantastic news for Southampton and for our customers.

“The berth redevelopment will help to ensure that the port remains globally competitive and successful by being able to handle the largest container vessels afloat.

“Having this enhanced infrastructure capability is vital and underscores Southampton’s position as the first and last deep-sea port of call in Northern Europe for the Far East liner services, with its sheltered location, unique double high tide, first-class road and rail distribution links to the Midlands and market-leading service and productivity.

“We play a major role in the international trade supply chain, and our aim is to make the transition of goods through our terminal as seamless as possible for customers – the reconstructed quay will be a key driver for even greater productivity, with continued fast, reliable and secure services.

He added: “DP World Southampton will be working closely with ABP on the reconstruction and development of the berths in what is another exciting chapter for all of us here at the port.”

City MP John Denham said the consent was the result of hard work by ABP and its supporters.

But he said it was now “essential” for the Government to issue a warning against any other delaying challenges for commercial interest.

“Southampton should be the UK’s premier port for south east China and India trade and this investment is absolutely essential for us to hold on and build on that role,” he said.

Comments(30)

The Salv says...
11:10am Mon 30 Apr 12

We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.

Just another reader says...
11:52am Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Why use this piece of very important news to drag the nuclear race into the arena???

I will be waiting with great hope that this plan goes ahead, it could mean the future is secure for generations of workers not only on the docks, but in the surrounding businesses that benefit from having one of Europes busiest and most productive container terminals close to them.

Smartiepants says...
12:39pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Just another reader wrote:
The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Why use this piece of very important news to drag the nuclear race into the arena???

I will be waiting with great hope that this plan goes ahead, it could mean the future is secure for generations of workers not only on the docks, but in the surrounding businesses that benefit from having one of Europes busiest and most productive container terminals close to them.
We need the jobs, it has to happen.

elvisimo says...
2:19pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story?

"we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"

The Salv says...
3:02pm Mon 30 Apr 12

elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.

phil maccavity says...
4:13pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
Off topic here but I have a relative who serves on a nuclear sub and loves it.
With anything in life there are dangers but I have never heard of any serious issues in Faslane, which is the home of UK's nuclear subs (at least until such time as the SNP drive them out)
However there are 6,500 full time and 3,500 associated jobs at the Faslane naval base so there difficult decisions to be made by the SNP going forward

ohec says...
4:46pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Perhaps if you have nothing relevant to say it might be better to keep mouth shut, as for the port i wish them luck as we need the jobs and the security it brings to the port,as far as your stupid comment about the submarine that doesn't even warrant a reply.

Ted Rogers says...
5:08pm Mon 30 Apr 12

ohec wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Perhaps if you have nothing relevant to say it might be better to keep mouth shut, as for the port i wish them luck as we need the jobs and the security it brings to the port,as far as your stupid comment about the submarine that doesn't even warrant a reply.
But that's exactly what you've just done, replied.

Just another reader says...
5:09pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Such good news, our hard work has been rewarded and our privately funded port expansion will safeguard jobs for years to come.

Sir Ad E Noid says...
5:33pm Mon 30 Apr 12

"But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew?" Incompetent crew, of course you are well placed to say that, or maybe your not. I would love to see exactly what you have done in your life. Probably nothing of importance. Unsafe, since when? Obnoxious comments by nobodies such as you shouldn't warrant a reply, but for you, I make an exception. When is the next visit from HM finest Nuclear submarine? Soon I hope, bring it on.

forest hump says...
6:21pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Excellent news. Now all we need is the go ahead for Dibden Bay. Could also throw in a Nuclear Submarine service yard for good measure.

Shoong says...
6:31pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Dear oh dear son, take a look at yourself.

aldermoorboy says...
6:41pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Great news, vote Tory this week, remember Saints went up under a Tory council.

dango says...
6:57pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
yeah, cos you hear about nuclear subs exploding all the time.

forest hump says...
7:15pm Mon 30 Apr 12

dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
yeah, cos you hear about nuclear subs exploding all the time.
Ignore him dango......jerk

Lone Ranger. says...
7:34pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Excellent news ..... That didnt take long did it ...... Mind you its a surprise that they were capable of making one.
.
Any chance of a U-Turn in a month ???????

The Salv says...
7:50pm Mon 30 Apr 12

**** fools the lot of you.

The Salv says...
7:57pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Shoong wrote:
The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Dear oh dear son, take a look at yourself.
Why?

The Salv says...
8:04pm Mon 30 Apr 12

forest hump wrote:
dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
yeah, cos you hear about nuclear subs exploding all the time.
Ignore him dango......jerk
Name calling eh, wouldnt expect much intellect from the likes of you. What is you IQ? 10. You have no sensible reply do you, you know why, cos your a sad little muppet with no balls.

The Salv says...
8:09pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Sir Ad E Noid wrote:
"But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew?" Incompetent crew, of course you are well placed to say that, or maybe your not. I would love to see exactly what you have done in your life. Probably nothing of importance. Unsafe, since when? Obnoxious comments by nobodies such as you shouldn't warrant a reply, but for you, I make an exception. When is the next visit from HM finest Nuclear submarine? Soon I hope, bring it on.
What a pathetic excuse of a comment. Nothing to contribute in the case of your arguement so you build an imaginery set of values to my charector in order to jusity your belief that you are correct. Thats right, and when you were bullied at school it was because the bully was just jeolous of you. What a loser.

forest hump says...
8:15pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
forest hump wrote:
dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
yeah, cos you hear about nuclear subs exploding all the time.
Ignore him dango......jerk
Name calling eh, wouldnt expect much intellect from the likes of you. What is you IQ? 10. You have no sensible reply do you, you know why, cos your a sad little muppet with no balls.
As I said, Ignore

The Salv says...
8:20pm Mon 30 Apr 12

forest hump wrote:
The Salv wrote:
forest hump wrote:
dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
yeah, cos you hear about nuclear subs exploding all the time.
Ignore him dango......jerk
Name calling eh, wouldnt expect much intellect from the likes of you. What is you IQ? 10. You have no sensible reply do you, you know why, cos your a sad little muppet with no balls.
As I said, Ignore
But your not though are you? Because there is some truth in what I say isnt there and havent the skills or arguement or IQ to reply have you. Thats right you stick to making moronic comments and the sports section because your way out of your depth arnt you. Sad little muppet.

The Salv says...
9:02pm Mon 30 Apr 12

dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
forest hump wrote:
The Salv wrote:
forest hump wrote:
dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
elvisimo wrote:
The Salv wrote: We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
can you come up with something different for once. What relevance does you? comment has to this story? "we need the jobs. But have you seen the price of eggs"
Think it has huge relevance. This story is showing the importance of the docks to this city but we are willing to risk it all for a needless visit from a Nuclear Sub which have an atrocious safety record.
yeah, cos you hear about nuclear subs exploding all the time.
Ignore him dango......jerk
Name calling eh, wouldnt expect much intellect from the likes of you. What is you IQ? 10. You have no sensible reply do you, you know why, cos your a sad little muppet with no balls.
As I said, Ignore
But your not though are you? Because there is some truth in what I say isnt there and havent the skills or arguement or IQ to reply have you. Thats right you stick to making moronic comments and the sports section because your way out of your depth arnt you. Sad little muppet.
Salv, are you due on?
You were supposed to ignore me... Fail!

dango says...
9:05pm Mon 30 Apr 12

some other guy said ignore you, I chose to ignore that advice and think for myself, how's that a fail?

The Salv says...
9:07pm Mon 30 Apr 12

dango wrote:
some other guy said ignore you, I chose to ignore that advice and think for myself, how's that a fail?
He just didnt want you to make a fool of yourself... oh well.

Nod says...
9:14pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
We need the jobs. But will we still be allowing unsafe nuclear submarines into the city captained by an incompetent crew? You can kiss goodbye to our docks if that were ever to go wrong.
Captained by a crew? No wonder they are unsafe. Just let one bloke be the captain.

The Salv says...
9:17pm Mon 30 Apr 12

dango wrote:
The Salv wrote:
dango wrote:
some other guy said ignore you, I chose to ignore that advice and think for myself, how's that a fail?
He just didnt want you to make a fool of yourself... oh well.
fancy a shag, I'll let you play mummy
and thats game set and match.

loosehead says...
9:25pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Look the submarine debate should be done when such a story is in this paper.
this article is about the fact that an improvement to the docks can go ahead hopefully bringing more jobs to the city in the private sector.
Forest Hump I wonder how many watersiders realise how wrong it was to oppose the Dibden container Port?
Why do they continue to call it a Bay surely that has gone now it's been filled in isn't it?
If you haven't noticed I tried not to bring in Politics into this article

The Salv says...
9:40pm Mon 30 Apr 12

loosehead wrote:
Look the submarine debate should be done when such a story is in this paper.
this article is about the fact that an improvement to the docks can go ahead hopefully bringing more jobs to the city in the private sector.
Forest Hump I wonder how many watersiders realise how wrong it was to oppose the Dibden container Port?
Why do they continue to call it a Bay surely that has gone now it's been filled in isn't it?
If you haven't noticed I tried not to bring in Politics into this article
Disagree, any opportunity we have to put our point forward we do. The people have the right to know what an idiotic idea it is and what we have at stake.

forest hump says...
10:15pm Mon 30 Apr 12

The Salv wrote:
loosehead wrote: Look the submarine debate should be done when such a story is in this paper. this article is about the fact that an improvement to the docks can go ahead hopefully bringing more jobs to the city in the private sector. Forest Hump I wonder how many watersiders realise how wrong it was to oppose the Dibden container Port? Why do they continue to call it a Bay surely that has gone now it's been filled in isn't it? If you haven't noticed I tried not to bring in Politics into this article
Disagree, any opportunity we have to put our point forward we do. The people have the right to know what an idiotic idea it is and what we have at stake.
Unfortunately, like most issues these days, are political. This means common sense and rational thinking is driven out of the window. Dibden Bay development and it's associated infrstructure would bring more jobs and prosperity to the Waterside. Those who oppose should curl up in a ball and go live in a cave.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree