Teesworks vs

PD Ports:

the strange

preoccupation with

South Gare

boats at South Gare

Scott Hunter

6 October 2023

The circus has now begun in earnest, with the court case of PD Ports vs STDC and Teesworks Ltd finally being heard in the High Court. PD Ports is confident of victory. The local press is not reporting on the case, which may be an indication that Houchen and his associates are less optimistic about the outcome. Elsewhere, reporting has focused largely on issues concerning access to the South Bank end of the site – what Private Eye has labelled ‘the tragic roundabout’. But equally bizarre is the issue of access to South Gare.



TVM has acquired copies of two letters sent by PD Ports to tenants on South Gare Road earlier this year, which reveal some of the intrigue behind STDC’s actions. In a letter dated 23 May 2023 they explain that PD Ports has some protection against STDC’s intentions at South Gare as it has statutory rights by virtue of being the Harbour Authority. Others who occupy premises there do not enjoy such protection: 

“Whilst the Teesworks document indicates the real reason for denying that access rights exist in the legal proceedings may be to try to then claim some payment, as the Statutory Harbour Authority we have statutory protection from any attempt to over-ride or circumvent our access rights should any compulsory purchase order process be implemented by the STDC after the Court process, assuming that is the intention on the part of the STDC. This statutory protection on our part from any future CPO process may not however protect your access arrangements.”

As this statement makes clear, they suspect that STDC may seek to obtain those parts of the land owned by PD Ports by compulsory purchase should the court rule in their favour. PD also provided their tenants with documentary evidence of STDC’s aim to use their leverage on the site to raise revenue:

extract from Teesworks document appended to PD Ports' letter of 23 May 2023

There are two issues of concern here. One is that the reassurance given by Houchen to PD Ports in 2019 that STDC had no intention of interfering their day-to-day operations now appears disingenuous:

This letter also alludes to PD Ports’ access rights over the land (without specifying here that it refers to rights both at South Bank and at South Gare), a right which STDC now denies. But, furthermore, it helps to explain Houchen’s motivation in issuing the reassurance, which is that PD, as one of the affected parties, will shortly be served ‘formal documentation’ as an affected party in the compulsory purchase (CPO) of land formerly owned by SSI UK (the steel works).

Behind Houchen’s reassurance lies the desire for PD not to raise objections to the CPO, with which the company duly (and, as it turns out, naively) complied. There remains the question, however, as to whether the 2019 letter was deliberately, or whether STDC’s attitude changed after it was written.

In early 2020 there were two significant developments – the compulsory purchase of former SSI land was completed but with the interference of Corney and Musgrave, who were then rewarded with a joint venture partnership with STDC, and the Daily Telegraph announced that there was an access dispute between them and PD.

By early 2021, Houchen was trying to put together a consortium of investors to make a takeover bid for the company. In July of that year, Brookfield Asset Management, owners of PD Ports, put the company on the market, only to withdraw it again that November, complaining that STDC was using the access dispute to try to force down the price.



Much of the dispute has focused on access between Tees Dock and Smith’s Dock Road at South Bank, with the other issue, the South Gare peninsula only occasionally receiving attention.

South Gare peninsula, showing spinal road (source: Google Maps)

The map shows the spinal road through the peninsula. The road, and much of the land to the East of it was acquired by STDC during the compulsory purchase of SSI land. The land to the West of the Road belongs to PD Ports. South of Paddy’s Hole, and on both sides of the road, are fishermen’s huts (not marked on the map). The Net Zero Teesside facility, meanwhile, is to be built further south, with its pipeline crossing the Coatham Dunes.  It is therefore unaffected by this dispute.

As we stated at the outset, PD is concerned that STDC will attempt to acquire this land through compulsory purchase, despite the fact that it cannot impede the work of the harbour authority. Which raises an awkward question, why on earth would the owners of a major freeport go to such lengths to acquire a thin strip of land containing little other than a few untidy buildings and a small, secluded harbour?

As the PD Ports letter to tenants (29 September) states, "You will no doubt draw your own conclusions".