Battle of Dibden Bay could be fought again after plans for terminal resurrected

Southampton port owners ABP have admitted their controversial plans to build a new terminal at Dibden Bay are likely be revived.

The site on the western side of the Southampton Water, bordering the New Forest National Park, was at the centre of a dispute which ran for almost seven years from the original proposal in 1997 to a government decision in 2004.

READ: Chancellor Philip Hammond visits Southampton to welcome GDP figures >>>

In the end the joint forces of residents and environmentalists defeated ABP as Labour minister Tony McNulty refused the application.

The minister followed the lead of the planning inspector, who while accepting the case for more container-ports in the UK, described ABP’s assessment of the environmental impact of the Dibden Bay project as “fundamentally flawed”.

Move on 12 years and a victim of its own success the port of Southampton is losing its own space race.

Increased traffic, particularly generated by the cruise ship, container and vehicle export business, has put pressure on the docks to expand.

Speaking during yesterday’s visit to the port by Chancellor Philip Hammond ABP chief executive James Cooper, pictured above, said: “We do have to find a way to expand the capacity of this port to handle Britain’s trade.

“There are jobs at the docks and all the way back through the supply chain to the manufacturers as well, it’s all important to the British economy.”

The chancellor backed ABP’s ambitions which he said were important the whole UK economy.

”It is important that key strategic infrastructure that enables our economy to move forward is looked at not just in terms of the local impacts but in terms of the national impacts as well,” said Mr Hammond.

In its new Master Plan 2016-2035 ABP states: “The Port is effectively nearing capacity. An outcome of this is that trade is being turned away - with consequential negative implications. To continue to be a first rate international gateway port over the timescale of the Master Plan the Port will need to expand.”

ABP says it has freed up as much space as possible by removing all non-port related activities from its land but “land use has continued to intensify and become more specialised through, for example, the expansion of the container terminal and the development of additional multi-deck car storage.”

A few weeks ago the company announced its plans to build four new multi-deck car parks, costing £50m, to deal with the growing number of vehicles, the majority for export, which pass through the port.

However as result of land use strategy “vital supporting port trade and port related employment uses are being moved out of the existing port estate”, says ABP’s masterplan.

Some expansion can be made to land owned by ABP at Marchwood Industrial Park and Cracknore Industrial Park but that will not solve the space problem.

ABP says in its Masterplan that by 2020, after undertaking feasibility studies and research, it is likely to be able to bring forward proposals for the port expansion onto its strategic land reserve.

That strategic land reserve is Dibden Bay, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, which is home to thousands of water birds. A large part of the 500-acre site was reclaimed using material from dregding in the Solent.

New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, whose constituency includes Dibden bay, said he was angry that the Chancellor had seemed to give his support to ABP’s expansion ambitions.

“This may have been an unscripted answer to a question he wasn’t expecting and he may not realise the magnitude of the controversy this issue has caused in the past but make no mistake I shall be bringing him up to speed on matter.”

The Tory MP, pictured above, said he was aware that a new Dibden Bay proposal was “lurking” in the background but he said the environmental impact of the port expansion outweighed its economic value.

“You have to decide when the price is too high and alternative ideas have to be promoted.”

WHAT IS DIBDEN BAY?

NO-ONE involved in what was dubbed the Battle of Dibden Bay will ever forget the experience.

Campaigners spent years fighting ABP's initial application to build a £600 million port on an environmentally sensitive piece of land on the edge of the New Forest.

Many of the objectors travelled to Southampton almost every day for 13 months to attend a public inquiry into the 800-hectare project.

The bitter battle ended in 2004, when the government rejected the controversial scheme after a 13-month public inquiry.

In a decision celebrated by thousands of Waterside residents then transport minister Tony McNulty said the environmental impact of the terminal would be too great.

ABP had sparked fury by seeking consent to build a six-berth terminal on reclaimed coastline between Hythe and Marchwood.

Company bosses said Southampton docks were running out of space and claimed that the Dibden Bay scheme was vital to the port's future.

But the scheme, which would have created 1,800 jobs, sparked massive opposition from local authorities and leading conservation groups.

Critics claimed the proposed development would destroy one of Britain's best wildlife sites.

People living in the area also objected to the application and formed an action group called Residents Against Dibden Bay Port (RADBP), which played a key role in the campaign.

The group was chaired by Paul Vickers, of Hythe Marina Village, who went on to become a leading member of New Forest District Council.

Recalling the campaigners' triumph a few years later he said: "As it went on and we turned the rhetoric into fact, our case seemed to get stronger and stronger."

New Forest East MP Julian Lewis said an entire community had won what he described as an "amazing victory" against what had once appeared to be overwhelming odds.

The government's decision was also welcomed by Friends of the Earth (FoE) and other environmental groups.

FoE spokesman Brenda Pollack said: "We are delighted that this highly destructive development has been rejected.

"It would have destroyed a number of nationally and internationally important wildlife sites and severely affected the lives of people living locally. ABP should never have proposed such a scheme."

Fellow campaigner Julie Astin added: "This is a great day for everyone living locally.

"All the hard work exposing ABP's flawed case has been worthwhile. The local community will be overjoyed that this destructive port will not be built."

Now, 12 years later, it looks as if their joyful celebrations could turn out to be premature.