Petition over military port delivered to Downing Street

Petition over military port delivered to Downing Street

Petition over military port delivered to Downing Street

First published in News

SIGNED, sealed and now it’s delivered.

Campaigners from Hampshire descended on Downing Street yesterday to hand over a 2,000-signature petition demanding to be consulted over future plans for Marchwood Military Port.

Hampshire county and Marchwood parish councillors joined Julian Lewis MP in London as they called on the Government to talk to local residents before taking further action.

As previously reported, Associated British Ports has expressed an interest in the site, causing concern in some quarters as to whether rail and road traffic in the area will increase.

Marchwood councillor Fred White said: “This is just the beginning and we are not going away.

“We are determined to make sure that everybody in Government realises this is an issue that everybody is united behind.”

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

7:02pm Thu 21 Aug 14

befriendly says...

In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.
In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created. befriendly
  • Score: -2

7:17pm Thu 21 Aug 14

thinklikealocal says...

befriendly wrote:
In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.
Quite....
[quote][p][bold]befriendly[/bold] wrote: In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.[/p][/quote]Quite.... thinklikealocal
  • Score: 0

7:32pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Totton_Saint_Andy says...

befriendly wrote:
In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.
What an incredibly selfish point of view. It's ignorant people like you who are holding back us securing a better future for generations to come. Wake up!
[quote][p][bold]befriendly[/bold] wrote: In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.[/p][/quote]What an incredibly selfish point of view. It's ignorant people like you who are holding back us securing a better future for generations to come. Wake up! Totton_Saint_Andy
  • Score: -4

7:33pm Thu 21 Aug 14

Forest Resident says...

befriendly wrote:
In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.
Not at all, we just don't want the conversion to a 24/7 commercial port and it's associated increase in heavy goods traffic being imposed on a small village without so much as reasonable consultation.
[quote][p][bold]befriendly[/bold] wrote: In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.[/p][/quote]Not at all, we just don't want the conversion to a 24/7 commercial port and it's associated increase in heavy goods traffic being imposed on a small village without so much as reasonable consultation. Forest Resident
  • Score: 3

9:06pm Thu 21 Aug 14

forest hump says...

If local people were consulted on every issue similar to this, the country would grind to a halt. They would all take the NIMBY approach. It is a busy port already with road and rail links. Improve the A-326, build Dibden Bay and the current port facilities shortage will be solved.
If local people were consulted on every issue similar to this, the country would grind to a halt. They would all take the NIMBY approach. It is a busy port already with road and rail links. Improve the A-326, build Dibden Bay and the current port facilities shortage will be solved. forest hump
  • Score: 1

9:21pm Thu 21 Aug 14

loosehead says...

So these idiots don't want a Port to run as a Port then? so when it's in mothballs & most of the civilian staff are out of work where exactly are they going to get Dock work from?
Is this more a case of certain elements of the waterside being anti any thing to do with Southampton or ABP?
So these idiots don't want a Port to run as a Port then? so when it's in mothballs & most of the civilian staff are out of work where exactly are they going to get Dock work from? Is this more a case of certain elements of the waterside being anti any thing to do with Southampton or ABP? loosehead
  • Score: -4

9:34pm Thu 21 Aug 14

phil maccavity says...

forest hump wrote:
If local people were consulted on every issue similar to this, the country would grind to a halt. They would all take the NIMBY approach. It is a busy port already with road and rail links. Improve the A-326, build Dibden Bay and the current port facilities shortage will be solved.
Whilst having a degree of sympathy for local residents who may be running scared due to the one sided view of some local politicians, it is pertinent to note that approx. 8 hectares (20 acres) of foreshore was reclaimed in the 1920's to allow the development of Marchwood Power Station and the Military Port.
In comparison the major residential developments in Marchwood Village were in the 1970's and 1980's
[quote][p][bold]forest hump[/bold] wrote: If local people were consulted on every issue similar to this, the country would grind to a halt. They would all take the NIMBY approach. It is a busy port already with road and rail links. Improve the A-326, build Dibden Bay and the current port facilities shortage will be solved.[/p][/quote]Whilst having a degree of sympathy for local residents who may be running scared due to the one sided view of some local politicians, it is pertinent to note that approx. 8 hectares (20 acres) of foreshore was reclaimed in the 1920's to allow the development of Marchwood Power Station and the Military Port. In comparison the major residential developments in Marchwood Village were in the 1970's and 1980's phil maccavity
  • Score: -2

12:25am Fri 22 Aug 14

Cyrus Muro says...

Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point.
further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.
Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point. further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph. Cyrus Muro
  • Score: 3

6:05am Fri 22 Aug 14

loosehead says...

Cyrus Muro wrote:
Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point.
further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.
so you want them to build new roads even though ABP has said most of the cars will go by rail & they are looking to up grade the tracks?
[quote][p][bold]Cyrus Muro[/bold] wrote: Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point. further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.[/p][/quote]so you want them to build new roads even though ABP has said most of the cars will go by rail & they are looking to up grade the tracks? loosehead
  • Score: -2

9:22am Fri 22 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

Forest Resident wrote:
befriendly wrote:
In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.
Not at all, we just don't want the conversion to a 24/7 commercial port and it's associated increase in heavy goods traffic being imposed on a small village without so much as reasonable consultation.
It's a reasonable and legal use of the port which will be good for the whole country if the operator generates extra income which will be taxed for the benefit of all. After airing your extensive views about how cycling will benefit the New Forest and castigating those who oppose it, I'm surprised that you are so protective about your own back yard even using similar arguments about the perceived threat that you dismissed when offered by the 'anti-cycling' lobby.
[quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]befriendly[/bold] wrote: In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.[/p][/quote]Not at all, we just don't want the conversion to a 24/7 commercial port and it's associated increase in heavy goods traffic being imposed on a small village without so much as reasonable consultation.[/p][/quote]It's a reasonable and legal use of the port which will be good for the whole country if the operator generates extra income which will be taxed for the benefit of all. After airing your extensive views about how cycling will benefit the New Forest and castigating those who oppose it, I'm surprised that you are so protective about your own back yard even using similar arguments about the perceived threat that you dismissed when offered by the 'anti-cycling' lobby. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

1:05pm Fri 22 Aug 14

southy says...

When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river.
A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.
When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river. A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence. southy
  • Score: -6

3:34pm Fri 22 Aug 14

forest hump says...

southy wrote:
When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river.
A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.
Of course!! It is so easy to uproot the docks and move them! Why not take the mountain to mohammed? Your are a blithering idiot.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river. A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.[/p][/quote]Of course!! It is so easy to uproot the docks and move them! Why not take the mountain to mohammed? Your are a blithering idiot. forest hump
  • Score: 9

3:46pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Torchie1 says...

southy wrote:
When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river.
A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.
Go back to the tide of unreasonable protest about a couple minor additions to a heavily industrialised and long established dock area near Millbrook and think about the upheaval required to do what you suggest. Add in the new rail links and motorways when you've overcome the protests about destroying a long established community and you'll grasp the reality. The docks are at Southampton and the owners have to do the best with what they've got.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river. A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.[/p][/quote]Go back to the tide of unreasonable protest about a couple minor additions to a heavily industrialised and long established dock area near Millbrook and think about the upheaval required to do what you suggest. Add in the new rail links and motorways when you've overcome the protests about destroying a long established community and you'll grasp the reality. The docks are at Southampton and the owners have to do the best with what they've got. Torchie1
  • Score: 5

4:17pm Fri 22 Aug 14

Forest Resident says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Forest Resident wrote:
befriendly wrote:
In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.
Not at all, we just don't want the conversion to a 24/7 commercial port and it's associated increase in heavy goods traffic being imposed on a small village without so much as reasonable consultation.
It's a reasonable and legal use of the port which will be good for the whole country if the operator generates extra income which will be taxed for the benefit of all. After airing your extensive views about how cycling will benefit the New Forest and castigating those who oppose it, I'm surprised that you are so protective about your own back yard even using similar arguments about the perceived threat that you dismissed when offered by the 'anti-cycling' lobby.
Let me be clear Torchie, I and many others are not strictly against this happening at all, we simply seek assurances that any impact on the local environment will be mitigated, that's entirely reasonable. The potential impact of a noisy/polluting industry operating on your doorstep 24/7 is quite simply incomparable to a few harmless cyclists!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Forest Resident[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]befriendly[/bold] wrote: In other words we suffer it now, but would prefer you just closed it completely. We're mostly retired people and don't want any more jobs for future generations created.[/p][/quote]Not at all, we just don't want the conversion to a 24/7 commercial port and it's associated increase in heavy goods traffic being imposed on a small village without so much as reasonable consultation.[/p][/quote]It's a reasonable and legal use of the port which will be good for the whole country if the operator generates extra income which will be taxed for the benefit of all. After airing your extensive views about how cycling will benefit the New Forest and castigating those who oppose it, I'm surprised that you are so protective about your own back yard even using similar arguments about the perceived threat that you dismissed when offered by the 'anti-cycling' lobby.[/p][/quote]Let me be clear Torchie, I and many others are not strictly against this happening at all, we simply seek assurances that any impact on the local environment will be mitigated, that's entirely reasonable. The potential impact of a noisy/polluting industry operating on your doorstep 24/7 is quite simply incomparable to a few harmless cyclists! Forest Resident
  • Score: 1

6:01pm Fri 22 Aug 14

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river.
A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.
If you research your history you will find that the land owned by the Chamberlain and Tankerville Estates, on the eastern side of the Itchen were looked at in the 1920's when the Docks were expanded and discounted for a number of reasons, most of which remain relevant now.
Millbrook Bay was considered to be the best option.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river. A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.[/p][/quote]If you research your history you will find that the land owned by the Chamberlain and Tankerville Estates, on the eastern side of the Itchen were looked at in the 1920's when the Docks were expanded and discounted for a number of reasons, most of which remain relevant now. Millbrook Bay was considered to be the best option. phil maccavity
  • Score: 5

11:57am Sat 23 Aug 14

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river.
A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.
If you research your history you will find that the land owned by the Chamberlain and Tankerville Estates, on the eastern side of the Itchen were looked at in the 1920's when the Docks were expanded and discounted for a number of reasons, most of which remain relevant now.
Millbrook Bay was considered to be the best option.
And thats where the mistake started to happen plus that is the Western Docks aka New docks, The Container port we should off built it down by the River Hamble, Ships are going to get longer and wider, will not be long when the super container ships start to get built and they will not be able to come into Southapton port.
But we can still do some thing about it.
If we move the Container port down by the Hamble less envirment damage will be done to the marine life when dredging. The water down there is more natrually deeper, unlike up where it is now the natrual depth of the river before the container port was built and the dredging that as been done was only around 6 to 8 feet deep on low water spring tides, up a little bit higher from the container port it only 3 to 4 feet deep and still is at low water springs, nice rapid here for bass fishing before the water drops into a deep pool, on those low water spring tides, also having the Container port down there the River is much wider.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river. A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.[/p][/quote]If you research your history you will find that the land owned by the Chamberlain and Tankerville Estates, on the eastern side of the Itchen were looked at in the 1920's when the Docks were expanded and discounted for a number of reasons, most of which remain relevant now. Millbrook Bay was considered to be the best option.[/p][/quote]And thats where the mistake started to happen plus that is the Western Docks aka New docks, The Container port we should off built it down by the River Hamble, Ships are going to get longer and wider, will not be long when the super container ships start to get built and they will not be able to come into Southapton port. But we can still do some thing about it. If we move the Container port down by the Hamble less envirment damage will be done to the marine life when dredging. The water down there is more natrually deeper, unlike up where it is now the natrual depth of the river before the container port was built and the dredging that as been done was only around 6 to 8 feet deep on low water spring tides, up a little bit higher from the container port it only 3 to 4 feet deep and still is at low water springs, nice rapid here for bass fishing before the water drops into a deep pool, on those low water spring tides, also having the Container port down there the River is much wider. southy
  • Score: -3

12:22pm Sat 23 Aug 14

southy says...

Torchie1 wrote:
southy wrote:
When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river.
A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.
Go back to the tide of unreasonable protest about a couple minor additions to a heavily industrialised and long established dock area near Millbrook and think about the upheaval required to do what you suggest. Add in the new rail links and motorways when you've overcome the protests about destroying a long established community and you'll grasp the reality. The docks are at Southampton and the owners have to do the best with what they've got.
The reality of it all is ships will become longer and wider, (the longest container ship do not call into Southampton as those few more inches makes it to long for southampton, so if you want the ships to keep coming into Port of Southampton then we need to move the docks down river for them to be able to get in. Starting with the container port, If they dont then Southampon will be deregulated to a minor port once again.
You can link up with the motorway easy with a Dock purpose slip road to the M27 by via a bridge across the river Hamble, rail link would be a short one as there is a wide open gap that could be used "west wood and collage wood.
Theres a Japanese, Korean and Chinese consurtum talking about building a Car Transporter longer than the Containership Emma, where do you think this ship will go if it gets built, not to Southampton, if the emma don't come to Southampton then this ship most surely will not, more likely it will go to Avonmouth using the outter dock quay and not the inner harbour or over on Portbury outter quay wall where they just done a lot alterations along the Jetty
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: When the docks got built in the 1800's, it was an ideal location, but as the area grew and expanded that location as become not so ideal, where ships are getting wider and deeper the docks is to far up river. A whole new plan is needed for Dock traffic and works, the docks need to be moved down river from Woolston to Hamble River entrence.[/p][/quote]Go back to the tide of unreasonable protest about a couple minor additions to a heavily industrialised and long established dock area near Millbrook and think about the upheaval required to do what you suggest. Add in the new rail links and motorways when you've overcome the protests about destroying a long established community and you'll grasp the reality. The docks are at Southampton and the owners have to do the best with what they've got.[/p][/quote]The reality of it all is ships will become longer and wider, (the longest container ship do not call into Southampton as those few more inches makes it to long for southampton, so if you want the ships to keep coming into Port of Southampton then we need to move the docks down river for them to be able to get in. Starting with the container port, If they dont then Southampon will be deregulated to a minor port once again. You can link up with the motorway easy with a Dock purpose slip road to the M27 by via a bridge across the river Hamble, rail link would be a short one as there is a wide open gap that could be used "west wood and collage wood. Theres a Japanese, Korean and Chinese consurtum talking about building a Car Transporter longer than the Containership Emma, where do you think this ship will go if it gets built, not to Southampton, if the emma don't come to Southampton then this ship most surely will not, more likely it will go to Avonmouth using the outter dock quay and not the inner harbour or over on Portbury outter quay wall where they just done a lot alterations along the Jetty southy
  • Score: -3

12:27pm Sat 23 Aug 14

southy says...

Torchie1
Most of the major ports in the Uk are doing some thing about there docks and moving so they have open deep water berths for the new longer ships that will be built, Southampton is not they are stuck with the false idea that the secondary high tide will save them, its not going to it will be there undoing
Torchie1 Most of the major ports in the Uk are doing some thing about there docks and moving so they have open deep water berths for the new longer ships that will be built, Southampton is not they are stuck with the false idea that the secondary high tide will save them, its not going to it will be there undoing southy
  • Score: -3

7:26pm Sat 23 Aug 14

Cyrus Muro says...

loosehead wrote:
Cyrus Muro wrote:
Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point.
further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.
so you want them to build new roads even though ABP has said most of the cars will go by rail & they are looking to up grade the tracks?
Most of cars going by rail fair enough so the 2 antiquated rail crossing in Marchwood closed all the time then ...... Great.
It really is simple already there is an industrial estate that has generated too much traffic for the road system in Marchwood with the majority of the people that either work at that site or delivering to that site ignoring speed limits all along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way, people that don't even seem to be able to see a white lines in a road, safely pass cyclists using discretion and indication, Indicate at roundabouts and seem to believe it is OK to do 60+ Mph along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way. Multiple accidents, injury's and even fatalities have already been caused on Jacobs Gutter because the industrial estate was implemented without proper attention being paid to the road system. The roads are full of pot holes everywhere caused by HGVs and the roundabouts and Junctions are all covered in diesel caused by irresponsible company's that overfill there unsealed Diesel tanks. On top of this the village itself is often gridlocked because drivers blindly follow satnav systems that take them into the village. I am in no way saying don't expand the port but I am saying if they want to do that they need to improve the road system and how it is monitored and take steps to make these roads safer not only for their users but for local people and their families.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyrus Muro[/bold] wrote: Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point. further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.[/p][/quote]so you want them to build new roads even though ABP has said most of the cars will go by rail & they are looking to up grade the tracks?[/p][/quote]Most of cars going by rail fair enough so the 2 antiquated rail crossing in Marchwood closed all the time then ...... Great. It really is simple already there is an industrial estate that has generated too much traffic for the road system in Marchwood with the majority of the people that either work at that site or delivering to that site ignoring speed limits all along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way, people that don't even seem to be able to see a white lines in a road, safely pass cyclists using discretion and indication, Indicate at roundabouts and seem to believe it is OK to do 60+ Mph along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way. Multiple accidents, injury's and even fatalities have already been caused on Jacobs Gutter because the industrial estate was implemented without proper attention being paid to the road system. The roads are full of pot holes everywhere caused by HGVs and the roundabouts and Junctions are all covered in diesel caused by irresponsible company's that overfill there unsealed Diesel tanks. On top of this the village itself is often gridlocked because drivers blindly follow satnav systems that take them into the village. I am in no way saying don't expand the port but I am saying if they want to do that they need to improve the road system and how it is monitored and take steps to make these roads safer not only for their users but for local people and their families. Cyrus Muro
  • Score: 2

9:05pm Sat 23 Aug 14

loosehead says...

Cyrus Muro wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Cyrus Muro wrote:
Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point.
further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.
so you want them to build new roads even though ABP has said most of the cars will go by rail & they are looking to up grade the tracks?
Most of cars going by rail fair enough so the 2 antiquated rail crossing in Marchwood closed all the time then ...... Great.
It really is simple already there is an industrial estate that has generated too much traffic for the road system in Marchwood with the majority of the people that either work at that site or delivering to that site ignoring speed limits all along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way, people that don't even seem to be able to see a white lines in a road, safely pass cyclists using discretion and indication, Indicate at roundabouts and seem to believe it is OK to do 60+ Mph along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way. Multiple accidents, injury's and even fatalities have already been caused on Jacobs Gutter because the industrial estate was implemented without proper attention being paid to the road system. The roads are full of pot holes everywhere caused by HGVs and the roundabouts and Junctions are all covered in diesel caused by irresponsible company's that overfill there unsealed Diesel tanks. On top of this the village itself is often gridlocked because drivers blindly follow satnav systems that take them into the village. I am in no way saying don't expand the port but I am saying if they want to do that they need to improve the road system and how it is monitored and take steps to make these roads safer not only for their users but for local people and their families.
If memory serves me right ABP were told that the roads weren't up to the traffic & locals didn't want more lorries on the road.
So ABP said they would up grade the railway tracks which many locals wanted.
Your now saying the locals would rather see more lorries & the roads improved yet on the telly this lot were complaining about extra volume on the roads?
Sooner or later something will have to give as one group wants to see better railway links & another doesn't want to see more trains but wants better roads.
If this land went to housing how many extra cars would there be on these roads?
[quote][p][bold]Cyrus Muro[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyrus Muro[/bold] wrote: Locals are not mostly retired! but that's beside the point. further commercial use of this area should only go ahead if they build a proper road along Jacobs gutter capable of handling constant lorry's that road should also include pedestrian and cycle paths and also reduce the speed limits along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way to 30mph.[/p][/quote]so you want them to build new roads even though ABP has said most of the cars will go by rail & they are looking to up grade the tracks?[/p][/quote]Most of cars going by rail fair enough so the 2 antiquated rail crossing in Marchwood closed all the time then ...... Great. It really is simple already there is an industrial estate that has generated too much traffic for the road system in Marchwood with the majority of the people that either work at that site or delivering to that site ignoring speed limits all along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way, people that don't even seem to be able to see a white lines in a road, safely pass cyclists using discretion and indication, Indicate at roundabouts and seem to believe it is OK to do 60+ Mph along Jacobs gutter and Normandy way. Multiple accidents, injury's and even fatalities have already been caused on Jacobs Gutter because the industrial estate was implemented without proper attention being paid to the road system. The roads are full of pot holes everywhere caused by HGVs and the roundabouts and Junctions are all covered in diesel caused by irresponsible company's that overfill there unsealed Diesel tanks. On top of this the village itself is often gridlocked because drivers blindly follow satnav systems that take them into the village. I am in no way saying don't expand the port but I am saying if they want to do that they need to improve the road system and how it is monitored and take steps to make these roads safer not only for their users but for local people and their families.[/p][/quote]If memory serves me right ABP were told that the roads weren't up to the traffic & locals didn't want more lorries on the road. So ABP said they would up grade the railway tracks which many locals wanted. Your now saying the locals would rather see more lorries & the roads improved yet on the telly this lot were complaining about extra volume on the roads? Sooner or later something will have to give as one group wants to see better railway links & another doesn't want to see more trains but wants better roads. If this land went to housing how many extra cars would there be on these roads? loosehead
  • Score: 0
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree