Solent Gateway 2

~ SPS Editor

Development at Dibden Bay

As an organisation that first campaigned actively against development of Dibden Bay around 20 years ago, Solent Protection Society’s current position is that some level of development of the site in today’s economic climate is now inevitable.  We are encouraged to see that the footprint of the proposed development closely follows our own recent thinking, leaving the southern two-thirds of the site in its natural state.  

Solent Gateway 2 proposed location

Solent Protection Society’s position

We support the proposed development approach and footprint in principle, subject to one key condition: that the land to the south is transferred by ABP and permanently safeguarded. SPS has already opened discussions with other interested organisations and will continue to collaborate on monitoring the ABP proposal throughout 2026.  We would, for example, favour a scheme whereby ABP could safeguard the remaining green space in perpetuity through the donation of the land to an appropriate body under a National Park-aligned designation and custodianship.

Solent Gateway 2, schematic view

As far as the proposal detail goes, the Society raised a number of concerns in our response to the initial consultation which we will pursue at the next stage:

  •  We would like to see the new jetty moved as close as possible to the existing Solent Gateway structures to maximise the length of unspoiled shoreline.
  • The visual interpretations shown above appear to depict very high structures, possibly up to six storey blocks of vehicle parking.  These would be highly intrusive structures on the skyline as viewed both from the sea and from the National Park to the west.
  • By the time these structures are built, most of the vehicles stored in them would be battery powered EVs which, while cleaner than their internal combustion engine  equivalents, could still present significant fire safety risks in such concentration.
  • The power consumption at the site would be significant, requiring further developments to provide shore power to ships and the capacity for on-site vehicle charging. There is nothing to indicate such a power source in the drawings; we would expect, for example, as a minimum, to see solar panel roofing covering the vehicle storage blocks within an acceptable overall structure height.
  • The site access road / A326 highway interchange development would have to be a pre-requisite activity, fully funded by ABP, to provide relief for Marchwood village.