7. Impact Assessment Approach - Southampton VTS Projects/7 I… · Environmental Statement for Port...

Environmental Statement for Port of Southampton: Berth 201/202 Works updated by Further Information

59

7. Impact Assessment Approach

7.1 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process for systematically predicting and evaluating the impacts and effects of development on the environment, which typically includes the following key stages: A scoping study to inform the Scoping Opinion of the relevant authority (in this case,

the Marine and Fisheries Agency (MFA) to determine the issues that the EIA should address;

Consultations with stakeholders and interested parties during both the scoping stage and EIA to discuss issues and request baseline information;

Preparation of an Environmental Statement (ES); and Submission of the ES and formal consultation with stakeholders.

7.2 A detailed review of the scoping study and consultations undertaken as part of this EIA is provided in Appendix A, along with the Scoping Opinion that was received from the MFA on 14 January 2008.

7.3 The EIA has been supported by a large resource of literature and data describing the existing

(baseline) environmental conditions in Southampton Water and the Solent. Reviews of this information and scoping consultations, however, identified gaps in the knowledge of the baseline environment and the need for additional investigations. The following additional studies have been undertaken: (1) Hydrodynamic Numerical Modelling Studies: To predict the physical effects of the

proposed development on the estuarine and marine environment. (2) Benthic Invertebrate Surveys: To assess the ecological value of the berth pocket and

of adjacent areas that are likely to be indirectly affected. (3) Seabed Sediment Characterisation: To determine the particle size distribution of

sediments that would be dredged and areas likely to be affected. (4) Seabed Sediment Contamination: To assess the quality of the sediment in the berth

pocket and areas likely to be indirectly affected. (5) Underwater noise monitoring and modelling: To assess the potential impact to fish. (6) Bird Surveys: To assess the potential impact on waterbird species. (7) Ship Wash Study: To predict the effects of receiving deeper-draughted vessels at

Berth 201/202 on the ship wave energies reaching the shore. (8) Noise Monitoring and Sound Propagation Modelling: To provide baseline noise

levels and predict impacts to humans.

7.4 In order to provide the Further Information, additional studies have been undertaken, including:


60

(9) A Transport Assessment: To assess the potential transport impacts. (10) A Water Framework Directive Assessment: To assess the potential impacts of the

project in relation to the thresholds of the Water Framework Directive. (11) A recommended Marine Conservation Zone Assessment: To assess the

implications of the project on recommended Marine Conservation Zones.

Scoped-Out Issues 7.5 Based on the nature of the proposed scheme, existing knowledge of the baseline conditions,

and findings from additional studies and consultations undertaken throughout the EIA, the following issues will not be affected by the proposed berth works and do not need further detailed examination as part of this EIA. Marine Archaeology

7.6 The existing quay was constructed in the late 1960’s and the adjacent channel has been deepened into the geological strata. As supported by the results of the geotechnical site investigation that was undertaken as part of this EIA (Appendix B), the proposed capital dredging required to deepen the berths will be into virgin material that was laid down prior to the existence of humans. There will, therefore, be no features of historical heritage value present that could be impacted by the proposed works. The morphological change arising from the deepened berth pocket and quay reconstruction will result in negligible changes to the existing sedimentation regime limited to the locality of the berth (Chapter 8). The predicted changes are so small in magnitude and spatial scale that they will not create any indirect impacts to local features of marine heritage value in the Test Estuary.

Terrestrial Archaeology 7.7 The works also involve the disturbance of material landward of the quay to allow for the

construction of the anchor wall, ties for the new quay wall and the crane rails on which the SSGC will run. The material to be disturbed consists, in the main, of the concrete surfacing of the quay and the material beneath, which was placed as fill material during the creation of the Container Terminal. This material will not contain features of archaeological significance.

7.8 The piles to support the rear crane rails, however, are likely to extend down below the level of

the fill material placed during the construction of the Container Terminal. There is therefore the possibility that previously unrecorded archaeological remains could be encountered when these piles extend below the fill material. Any such impact would, however, be localised to the footprint of the pile itself.

7.9 It is not practicable to determine whether there are any archaeological remains in the locations

likely to be disturbed by the rear crane rail piles before the piling takes place. To address this, therefore, ABP will put in place an archaeological watching brief - with any archaeological features encountered being recorded appropriately.


61

7.10 As a consequence, it is concluded that, on the basis of the above, the project is unlikely to have

any significant effects on land based archaeological features. This issue does not, therefore, need to be considered further. The potential effects on land based cultural heritage features are, however, the subject of an assessment which is reported in chapter F5.

Air Quality

7.6 The deepened berth pocket will allow deeper-draughted vessels to use the berth, restoring the capacity of the container terminal to four berths. The overall number of shipping movements is not expected to increase above present levels, subject to annual fluctuations, given that the number of berths at the port is remaining the same. As shipping technology develops, the newer vessels tend to be less polluting. In addition, Berth 201/202 will be the closest container berth for ships entering the estuary and will, therefore, involve fewer berthing manoeuvres (and hence, fuel usage) compared to the other container berths in the more restricted part of the channel further upstream. Landscape and Visual Impacts

7.7 The deepening work will be on subtidal habitats and there will be no change to landscape character or visual appearance. The construction works will be small and similar in character to the use of the existing quay. The landscape and visual appearance will not, therefore, be significantly altered. Waste Management

7.11 Any waste issues arising from the dredging and construction phases will be addressed using best practice methodologies. The arisings will be disposed of at the Nab Deposit Ground, subject to a beneficial use being found (paragraphs 4.9 to 4.11). Terrestrial Ecology

7.12 The proposed landside works will be carried out within the existing and developed port area. Marine works will only be undertaken on subtidal habitats. Any potential indirect effects on intertidal habitats are, therefore, will need to be considered but terrestrial habitats will not be affected (see paragraph 6.5).

Television Reception 7.13 A tall structure has the potential to cause interference to the transmission of wireless services

by physically obstructing or causing diffraction of the signal when it is located directly in, or close to, the path of the radio wave. This may result in the reflection and scattering of the radio waves and may, in some circumstances, affect television reception.

7.14 Radio reception is in fact less likely to be affected because radio uses lower frequency signals

and longer wave lengths which suffer less from shadowing and reflection.


62

7.15 Satellite television is not likely to be affected by interference as the transmitter (satellite) is high in the sky and the line of site from the transmitter to the receiver (satellite dish) is less likely to be blocked.

7.16 Whilst the adverse effects of large static structures, such as tall buildings, on wireless services

are well understood, the effects of a tall lattice structure, such as a Ship to Shore Gantry Crane (SSGC) are relatively unknown. It is, therefore, difficult to predict the potential impact of such structures upon the electromagnetic wave propagation.

7.17 Digital reception does, however, offer a high degree of resistance to some of the signal

impairments (particularly delayed image interference) that can spoil analogue television reception. In this context, the digital switchover in Southampton is scheduled to take place in March 2012. As a consequence, it is considered probable that there will be no effect to television reception as a result of the SSGCs on berths 201 and 202 in that the SSGCs will not be erected until 2013.

7.18 In the unlikely event that effects on digital television reception are reported, they will be

investigated. Mitigation measures, however, are available to provide an alternative means of signal reception, e.g. the redirection of household aerials, the upgrading of aerial installations etc (Ofcom1, 2009). As a result of the imminent digital switchover, however, it is considered that there is little likelihood of the proposed works significantly affecting television reception and this matter is not further assessed in the ES. Impact Assessment Methodology

7.19 The following section explains the methodology used in the assessment process. Paragraphs 7.20 to 7.29 and tables 7.1 to 7.3 relate to the assessments included in chapters 8 to 17, whilst paragraph 7.30 relates to the assessments contained within chapters F1 to F7.

7.20 To facilitate the impact assessment process a standard analysis methodology has been applied.

This framework has been developed from a range of sources including: the Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007, statutory guidance, consultations and the company’s previous EIA project experience. The key guidance and regulations that have been drawn upon include: (1) The criteria listed in Annex III of the EC Environmental Assessment Directive (85/337

EEC as amended by 97/11/EC); (2) The assessment process developed by statutory conservation agencies to provide

advice on operations within European Marine Sites (English Nature, 2000); (3) An Environmental Risk Assessment approach developed by ABP Research (ABP

Research, 1997a); and (4) The guidance provided in Schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 [as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2006].

1 Tall Structures and their Impact on Broadcast and Other Wireless Services (2009)


63

7.21 The environmental issues are divided into distinct ‘receiving environments’ or ‘receptors’. The effect of the proposed development on each of these is assessed by describing in turn: the baseline environmental conditions of each receiving environment; the ‘impact pathways’ by which the receptors could be affected; the significance of the impacts occurring and the measures to mitigate for significant adverse impacts where these are predicted.

7.22 This Impact Assessment Framework, which is presented in the following sections, is designed

to incorporate the key criteria and considerations without being overly prescriptive. Stage 1 - Identify Features and Changes

7.23 The first stage identifies the potential environmental changes resulting from the proposed development and the features of interest (receptors) that are likely to be affected (which are together referred to as the impact pathway). This aspect of the assessment has been developed in consultation with key statutory and non-statutory authorities (see Appendix A). Stage 2 - Understand Change and Sensitivity

7.24 The second stage involves understanding the nature of the environmental changes to provide a benchmark against which the changes and levels of exposure can be compared. The scale of the impacts via the impact pathways depends upon a range of factors, including the following: Magnitude (local/strategic); Spatial extent (small/large scale); Duration (short/intermediate/long term); Frequency; Reversibility; Probability of occurrence; Confidence, or certainty, in the impact prediction; The margins by which set values are exceeded (e.g. water quality standards); The importance of the receptor (e.g. designated habitats and protected species); The sensitivity of the receptor (resistance/adaptability/recoverability); The baseline conditions of the system; and Existing long-term trends and natural variability. Stage 3 - Impact Evaluation

7.25 The likelihood of a feature being vulnerable to an impact pathway is then evaluated as a basis for assessing the level of the impact and its significance. The vulnerability of a receptor is derived from the relationship between its anticipated levels of exposure and its response characteristics. The degree to which exposure exceeds sensitivity will indicate the predictability, or certainty, of the impact. The actual categorisation of the significance level will tend to be a judgement-based decision.

7.26 The key significance levels for either beneficial or adverse impacts are described as follows:

(1) Insignificant: Insignificant change not having a discernable effect; (2) Minor: Effects tending to be discernable but tolerable;


64

(3) Moderate: Where these changes are adverse they may require mitigation; and (4) Major: Effects are highest in magnitude and reflect the high vulnerability and

importance of the receptor (e.g. to nature conservation). Where these changes are adverse they will require mitigation.

Stage 4 - Impact Management

7.27 The final stage is to identify any impacts that are found to be moderate and/or major adverse significant and require mitigation measures to reduce residual impacts, as far as possible, to environmentally acceptable levels. Within the assessment procedure the use of mitigation measures will alter the risk of exposure and hence will require significance to be re-assessed and thus the residual impact identified. Impact Assessment Guidance Tables

7.28 The matrices in Tables 7.1 to 7.3 were used to help assess significance. Table 7.1 was used as a means of generating an estimate of exposure. Table 7.2 was then used to assess the vulnerability of the features of interest based on the sensitivity of those features and their exposure to a given change. The vulnerability was combined with the importance of the feature of interest using Table 7.3 to generate an initial level of significance.

7.29 If the significance of the impact is considered to be of an unacceptable level, then mitigation

measures are proposed and the overall significance reassessed. In this way, any adverse impact of moderate through to major significance was re-examined to see if some form of impact reduction measure could be incorporated. Table 7.1 Exposure to change, combining magnitude and probability of change

Magnitude of Change Probability of Occurrence Large Medium Small Negligible

High High Medium Low Negligible Medium Medium Medium/Low Low/Negligible Negligible

Low Low Low/Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible

Table 7.2 Estimation of vulnerability based on sensitivity and exposure to change

Exposure to Change Sensitivity of Feature High Medium Low Negligible

High High High Moderate None Moderate High Moderate Low None

Low Moderate Low Low None None None None None None

Table 7.3 Estimation of significance based on vulnerability and importance

Vulnerability of Feature to Impact Importance of Feature High Moderate Low None

High Major Moderate Minor Insignificant Moderate Moderate Moderate/Minor Minor/Insignificant Insignificant

Low Minor Minor/Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant None Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant Insignificant


65

7.30 The assessments contained in chapters F1 to F7 each explain the relevant impact assessment

methodology that has been used. For consistency, however, the overall categorisation of the effects given in those chapters matches as far as possible that set out above in paragraph 7.26. Cumulative Impact and In-Combination Assessment

7.31 Under the Marine Works (EIA) Regulations 2007, it is necessary to assess the potential cumulative impact of the proposed works in-combination with other known developments in the area. Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (‘Habitats Regulations’), it is also necessary to consider the in-combination effects of development proposals on European Sites.

7.32 Information on additional projects was requested from the regulatory bodies early in the

consultation process for the EIA. A list of proposed projects for inclusion in the cumulative impact assessment was included in the scoping report (ABPmer, 2007a) and additional projects were identified as part of the scoping process. Further projects, which have come on stream since 2008, have been identified during the production of the Further Information. The cumulative impact and in-combination assessment is presented in Chapter 18.

Approach to the Assessment 7.33 The EIA Directive (as amended) requires that the information to be provided in an ES should

include a description of the likely significant effects of the proposed project (in this case the berth 201/202 reconstruction works and the subsequent operation of the berth) on the environment.

7.34 In order to meet this requirement consideration has been given by ABP to the likely

consequences for the existing Container Terminal once berth 201/202 have been returned to full container operational use. This was so as to enable an assessment to be made of any likely significant effects arising from the works.

7.35 A direct consequence of the berth 201/202 development is that there will be an increase in the

overall maximum number of containers that could be handled by the Container Terminal. This is explained further in the following paragraphs but in summary ABP has concluded that without the berth 201/202 works, the maximum future capacity of the Container Terminal is 2.3m TEU (twenty foot equivalent units) per annum, whereas with the berth 201/202 works this maximum future capacity has the potential to increase to 2.8m TEU per annum.

7.36 This maximum future terminal capacity of 2.8m TEU per annum cannot, however, be achieved

solely as a result of the berth 201/202 works. Certain other capacity enhancing changes to the terminal will also be needed in combination with the berth 201/202 works to achieve this overall capacity.

7.37 In order for the assessments undertaken to be robust and to meet the requirements of the

Directive, ABP, therefore, is of the view that the basis of the assessment should not simply be of


66

the berth 201/202 works, but of the whole Container Terminal operating at a capacity of 2.8m TEU per annum.

7.38 As a consequence, it was recognised that for assessment purposes it would be necessary to

define various other scenarios relating to the operation of the Container Terminal against which this maximum capacity scenario could be assessed. These various scenarios are explained in further detail in the following sections. Before doing so, however, some explanation is provided as to how the capacity of the terminal has been determined.

Calculation of Capacity 7.39 The overall capacity of any container terminal is a measure of the number of containers that can

be moved through the terminal. Overall terminal capacity is determined by either the berth capacity or the storage (yard) capacity. Berth capacity is a measure of the number of containers that can be moved over the quay and is a function of the useable length of the berth, the number of cranes and the crane capacity and utilisation. The yard capacity is a measure of the number of containers that can be moved through the storage area and is a function of the area available for storage, the stacking density and the dwell time.

7.40 Berth capacity is sometimes calculated empirically on the basis of the theoretical number of

TEU that can be handled over a unit length of quay; a figure of 1500 TEU per metre being often quoted. This approach, however, does not take into account the potential variations in the number of cranes or the efficiency of their use (utilisation). The number of cranes provided on a berth is, therefore, a compromise between the demand to be able to load and unload vessels quickly, which would call for a large number of cranes, and the need to maximise crane utilisation, which would call for a smaller number of cranes. The optimum crane efficiency is usually achieved with approximately one crane per 100 metres of berth. At this density, over a number of continuous berths, a single crane can be expected to achieve between 90,000 and 100,000 lifts per year. This, depending upon the TEU to container ratio, equates realistically to an average of between approximately 150,000 to 175,000 TEU per crane per annum. If the number of cranes is increased, the efficiency of their use decreases as it becomes more difficult to redistribute them to adjacent berths when a particular berth is vacant. Similarly, the efficiency of crane use decreases if there is a limited number of berths over which cranes can be re-distributed. It should, therefore, be recognised that the calculation of container terminal capacity is subject to a number of variables and assumptions. Capacity calculations for one terminal cannot be necessarily applied to another.

The Existing Position at the Container Terminal 7.41 In summary, the Southampton Container Terminal in its existing form (see Figure 7.1) consists

of:

Twelve (12) SSGC operating along berths 204 to 207. The exclusive use of berths 204 to 207 (1350m of quay) for container handling. A container storage area where containers are generally stacked up to three (3) boxes

high and moved by straddle carriers, and where empty containers are stacked up to seven (7) high.


67

The occasional use of berths 201 to 203 (which are currently common user non exclusive berths) for feeder container operations undertaken by mobile harbour cranes.

7.42 The existing berth capacity of the Container Terminal is considered to be 2.1m TEU per annum.

This is calculated by multiplying the number of cranes (12) by a productivity of 175,000 TEU per crane per annum. The available yard capacity is considered by the terminal operator to be 2.3m TEU taking into account the variables of capacity referred to in paragraph 7.30. It follows, therefore, that the overall existing capacity of the Container Terminal is 2.1m TEU per annum, being limited by the available berth capacity.

7.43 The figure of 2.1m TEU, therefore, relates to capacity, although the terminal has never operated

at this level. In fact, the maximum throughput achieved at the terminal was in 2007 when in the order of 1.9m TEU were handled. Due to the economic climate since that time, terminal throughput has declined. The throughput of the terminal in 2011 is predicted to be in the order of 1.6m TEU.

7.44 Throughout the assessments undertaken in this ES, regard has been had, as necessary, to

these levels of throughput as positions against which effects have been identified and assessed. These are referred to as:

Historic Baseline – the Container Terminal operating at its historic maximum throughput of

1.9m TEU (2007); and Current Baseline – the Container Terminal as predicted to operate in 2011, which is at a

throughput of 1.6m TEU. The future position without the berth 201 / 202 works 7.45 In addition to defining the current and historic positions, consideration has also been given to

what the future maximum capacity of the Container Terminal could be without the berth 201/202 works.

7.46 If the berth 201/202 works were not undertaken, it is considered likely that the overall maximum

capacity of the terminal would be 2.3m TEU per annum. The increase over the existing terminal capacity of 2.1m TEU would be achieved by:

The addition of two further SSGCs along berths 204 to 207. These cranes would be the

larger model type currently found along berths 204 – 207. If any more than two SSGCs were to be added significant issues would arise in terms of utilisation, particularly as the number of vessels able to use the berth simultaneously is decreasing as a result of the increasing length of vessels.

The exclusive use of berths 201 to 203 (in an unchanged form) for transhipment and short sea container operations undertaken by mobile harbour cranes. This would free up berths 204 to 207 to be used exclusively for deep-sea container traffic.

7.47 With the enhancements detailed above, the berth capacity of the Container Terminal has the

potential to increase to a maximum of 2.3m TEU per annum. This is again calculated by multiplying the number of cranes with the assumed productivity, but also includes the additional


68

throughput over berths 201 to 203 that would occur as a result of transhipment/short sea operations.

7.48 It nevertheless follows that the provision of the two extra cranes along berths 204 to 207 will

reduce the average utilisation rate of all of the cranes along these berths, especially in light of the fact that these berths can increasingly only accommodate three vessels. The figure of 175,000 TEU per annum used in respect of the existing position is not, therefore, considered realistic in this scenario and a productivity figure in the region of 155,000 TEU per crane per annum has been assumed, which results in a berth capacity along berths 204 to 207 of 2.17m TEU. In addition to this, a throughput level of somewhere between 100,000 – 150,000 TEU per annum has been assumed as being handled across berths 201 to 203 as a result of transhipment/short sea operations. As a result the overall maximum berth capacity is considered to be in the order of 2.3m TEU, which would match available yard capacity.

7.49 Throughout the assessments undertaken in this ES, regard has, therefore, been had, as

appropriate, to this scenario, which is referred to as the Future position without the works scenario. In physical terms the form of the Container Terminal in this scenario would be its current physical form altered by the capacity enhancement measures highlighted in paragraph 7.46 (Figure 7.2).

The future position with the berth 201/202 works 7.50 Under this scenario, the Container Terminal (as shown on Figure 7.3) would consist of: Berth 201/202 Works and Operation

a rebuilt quay along berth 201/202; a deepened berth 201/202; the inclusion of berths 201 to 203 within the Container Terminal area for the exclusive

use of container handling operations; up to six (6) SSGCs along the rebuilt quay at berths 201/202; some minor amendments to the storage yard area behind the berth 201/202 quay; storage of containers generally up to three (3) boxes high (with empty containers

stacked up to seven (7) high) within the yard storage area. Other works not part of the Berth 201/202 Works

the addition of two further SSGCs along berths 204 to 207 (as in the future position without the works scenario).

The introduction of a different method of handling containers - in replacement of the current straddle carrier operation - within a part of the storage yard area, which might include Rubber Tyred Gantry (RTG) Cranes or Rail Mounted Gantry (RMG) Cranes.

7.51 Berth capacity is again calculated by multiplying the number of cranes by the assumed

productivity. For the fourteen (14) cranes along berths 204 to 207 the position would be as detailed above, meaning that these berths would have a capacity of 2.17m TEU.

7.52 Up to six cranes along berth 201 and 202 would be installed to enable a vessel to be serviced

as quickly as possible. Whilst this increases the effective crane capacity when the berth is occupied, the utilisation level for these cranes and, therefore, overall productivity, would be


69

significantly lower than for the other cranes along berth 204 – 207. This is because berth 201/202 would only be able to operate as a single vessel berth, and due to the layout of the terminal, it would not be possible to redistribute the cranes to other berths when berth 201/202 is vacant. As a consequence the utilisation of the cranes along berths 201/202 is anticipated to be in the order of 100,000 to 110,000 TEU per annum, resulting in a 201/202 berth capacity of 600,000 to 660,000 TEU. It is, therefore, considered that the maximum berth capacity available would be 2.8m TEU.

7.53 The current yard capacity is, as already indicated, 2.3m TEU. With the introduction of an

alternative method of handling containers within part of the yard area i.e. RMG or RTG, the yard capacity will be increased to match the 2.8m TEU berth capacity.

7.54 On the basis of the above the overall maximum capacity of the Container Terminal with the

berth 201/202 works is, therefore, considered to be 2.8m TEU. 7.55 It would be theoretically possible to increase the yard capacity beyond the figure of 2.8m TEU

by introducing an RMG or RTG operation throughout the whole of the container yard area. This, however, would not increase the overall maximum capacity of the terminal beyond 2.8m TEU as it would remain constrained by the berth capacity of 2.8m TEU per annum.

7.56 This scenario is subsequently referred to throughout the various assessments as Future

position with the works scenario. This is even though the changes that would be made at the Container Terminal under this scenario are greater than just those brought about by the berth 201/202 works ABP wishes to undertake, and which are described in detail in Chapter 3.

7.57 The actual use that is made of available capacity at the Container Terminal (i.e. throughput

generated) is a function of economic activity. As noted, the long term anticipated growth in container throughput at Southampton with the works is predicted by the terminal operator to be 3.5% per annum. Based on the predicted 2011 throughput of 1.6m TEU, it is clear from the above that the additional capacity at the terminal generated as a result of the berth 201/202 works will only be of benefit from 2021 onwards, as this is the point when demand is considered likely to exceed 2.3m TEU, the level of potential capacity considered available without the berth 201/202 works.

7.58 The berth 201/202 works are not, however, driven by the requirement to provide additional

terminal capacity. The underlying need, as explained in chapter 2, is to provide an additional berth space to accommodate the current and future generation of container vessels. Only then will the terminal be in a position to continue to service the requirements of the container lines.

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

FUELTANK

RSKIOSK

��

Berths 204 - 207 (12 cranes)

Berth 203

Berth

s 20

1 - 2

02

SOUTHAMPTONSOUTHAMPTON

River Test

MMiillllbbrrooookk RRooaadd WWeesstt

SOUTHAMPTON

Millbrook Road West

Based upon the Ordnance Survey scale maps with thepermission of The Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office

© Crown Copyright ABP Group Licence . ALD 814517 Ocean Gate, Atlantic way, SO14 3QN

Figure 7.1 - Container Terminal

Existing Position

Container Terminal Area

Container Storage

ABP SouthamptonOcean Gate, Atlantic WaySouthampton, SO14 3QN

North

North

North

0 250 metres

Source: Associated British Ports

Berths 201 - 203 occasionally used for feederoperations using mobile harbour cranes

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

FUELTANK

RSKIOSK

��


Berth 203

Berth

s 20

1 - 2

02


River Test


SOUTHAMPTON

Millbrook Road West




Future position without the berth 201 / 202works


Container Storage


North

North

North

0 250 metres


Berths 201 - 203 included within the terminal areaand used exclusively for short sea / transhipmentoperations

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

FUELTANK

RSKIOSK

��


Berth

s 20

1 - 2

02 (6

cra

nes)


River Test


SOUTHAMPTON

Millbrook Road West




Future position with the berth 201 / 202works


Container Storage (RTG or RMG overpart - Straddle carriers to remain over rest)


North

North

North

0 250 metres


7. Impact Assessment Approach - Southampton VTS Projects/7 I… · Environmental Statement for Port...

Documents

Transcript of 7. Impact Assessment Approach - Southampton VTS Projects/7 I… · Environmental Statement for Port...