SOUTHAMPTON City Council has renewed its support for a super-port at Dibden Bay.

Councillors agreed to lobby for the use of the reclaimed land on the other side of Southampton Water.

They said the controversial development was vital for jobs, the expansion of the city’s port and Southampton’s future prosperity.

Labour councillors argued new planning rules to speed up important infrastructure developments, such as ports, provided the chance to resurrect the plans still harboured by dock owners Associated British Ports (ABP).

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

Tory councillors split with party colleagues in the New Forest to back a Labour motion.

“The benefits are enormous,”

said council leader councillor Alec Samuels, pointing to the plans for six new berths and improved rail and ferry links. We support Dibden Bay, no question about that whatsoever.”

Locals and green campaigners had objected fiercely to the original proposals which were supported by the city council.

They sparked a 13-month public inquiry before then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott finally refused the £600m scheme five years ago on environmental grounds.

Cabinet member for planning Councillor Matt Dean, who had raised doubts about putting planning decisions in the hands of another Government quango, said the refusal of Dibden Bay had already caused lasting economic damage to Southampton, and ABP were bearing the costs of maintaining competitiveness with rivals.

Labour councillors said the port needed the support of the council and others so it was in a strong position to revive Dibden Bay plans when the economic turnaround comes.

The Daily Echo revealed that container volumes at the docks had already plummeted ten per cent in 2008 compared with the previous year.

Lib Dems backed development at Dibden Bay but condemned the planning bill as “undemocratic”.

Tory-run New Forest District Council said development at Dibden Bay was still inappropriate.

New Forest East MP Dr Julian Lewis said Government ministers had assured him the new planning bill would have reached the same result, just quicker, as the “impact on biodiversity” would have been identified earlier.