Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Chief Executive providing details on the impact the operations at the Port of Southampton have on air quality, attached.

The Panel considered the report of the Assistant Chief Executive relating to the impact that the operations at the Port of Southampton had on air quality.

A joint written statement was provided by Associated British Ports and D P World Southampton (DPWS) in the appendices to the report, together with the report from Meachers Global Logistics on a Sustainable Distribution Centre.

Aart Hille Ris Lambers from DPWS gave more details on the statement provided:-

·  October was always a very busy month as deliveries were needed for the Christmas period.

·  Peak hours within the port were not the same as the usual commuter peak traffic hours.  The peak port hours were 13.00 to 16.00 hours.

·  Bookings were restricted to 125 per hour in order for the vehicles within the docks to be serviced in an appropriate time.

·  36% of the containers were now carried by rail, reducing the number of lorry movements by 80,000 per year.  This compared to 28% in 2007.

·  There had been a large investment in the rail link.  Including the gauge height of the tunnel to allow high cube containers to use the rail links; the Freightliner terminal had new cranes; and prioritising rail containers discharging from vessels as there was no flexibility on the train movements in the same way that there was with lorries.

·  Energy reduction was currently measuring 22%.

·  They were looking into the possibility of trials for compressed gas powered straddle carriers.

·  Had previously trialled hybrid straddle carriers however they had not deliver.

·  There had been major developments ship side with the opening of Terminal 5 which now meant new larger ships could berth.  The newer ships were more energy/ fuel efficient.

·  In January 2015 there was an agreement being introduced for ships to burn cleaner fuel.  Marine gas oil was more expensive but less polluting.

The following responses were received to questions raised:-

·  In principle DPWS would be supportive of a bid for the City to achieve Ultra-Low Emission City (ULEC) Status.  And also involvement in community projects.  There would need to be work with the community and viable for the business.

·  The intension was to increase the use of the rail facilities, but this would be customer driven.  There was pollution associated with rail however the impact was less than that caused by the road journeys.  Currently it tended to be the shorter distances that the journey would be by road.  Customers with deliveries further than Birmingham would look to use rail freight.

·  London deliveries were not often rail freight.  In order to go into London the vehicles have to be compliant with the rules of the Low Emissions Zone, so they would generally be newer and more environmentally friendly. This has had a knock on effect and Southampton is having cleaner vehicles visiting the City.

·  Ship to shore power was still an area that was limited due to there being no industry standard on what equipment would be used.  Therefore it was not viable to invest in quay side equipment that may not be suitable.

·  Consideration of the increasing the slots available for vehicles could possibly be considered.  They currently do not go over the current 125 slots per hour.  Hours of operation had been increased recently over the weekend period however the take up had not been sufficient to continue.  This would have been partly due to the current shortage of drivers and the rules regarding their driving hours.

·  With regards to queuing lorries at Dock Gate 20, the Vehicle Booking System (VBS) meant that vehicles do not arrive at the docks unless they have a slot, therefore there should not be any queues.  If drivers arrived earlier than their booking they were able to contact the VBS helpdesk to amend the time of the booking to ensure vehicles were not queuing.  Parking areas within the docks was an issue and therefore it was important to ensure all vehicles were only arriving if they had a current VBS slot.

·  There was a need for a local lorry parking facilities, particularly at night, in order for the lorries to have a place to go if they did not have a current VBS slot.  Other ports had such facilities and they worked very well.  They were privately operated and provided facilities for the drivers as well as parking.

·  Idling of vehicles was not an issue.  Whilst moving around areas there would be a small amount of idling, however when vehicles were waiting engines were switched off.  It would not be economical for the engines to be idling.

·  In principle DPWS would be supportive of a no idling policy as long as it did not affect the drivers getting to their destination or parking up.

·  There was no need to have enforcement measures for drivers arriving without a VBS slot, as this did not occur.  If companies were not registered to use the system then they were unable to collect containers.

·  Companies were encouraged to use the off peak slots with the current charging structure.  Peak time slots were more expensive.  Some off peak slots were free.

·  DPWS would be prepared to consider looking at supporting a monitoring station within the dock, dependant on cost.

·  DPWS would be able to provide details of companies that were already using Liquid Nitrogen Gas (LNG) as an alternative fuel.

Congratulations were given to DPWS for being awarded Global Port Operator of the Year 2014.