Three developers on shortlist for Southampton's Royal Pier (From Daily Echo)

More flats! Just what the centre of Southampton needs...

Why does there need to be offices built down there? Offices need to be away from this part of town otherwise traffic will increase massively. Besides offices look really ugly when they are empty!

This needs to look good from the water with all the cruiseships coming in and really put Southampton on the map...I think the developers need to look at something like the O2 arena for inspiration...I would also like to see somewhere for people to get views across the city and water like the Spinnaker tower...maybe this can be built into the multipurpose venue with a restaurant at the top...don't bother with shops Southampton has enough of them as it is!!! Quality dining, entertainment, and a family location to see the cruiseships...with shuttle buses to and from WestQuay for the shops and the station...

I'd love to be involved with the development of this area...

mayflower park will need to go to the people to decide on, this is not a decision that the council can take, its not up to them. this is what royston smith and his high life friends want and not what the people of southampton want.

southy wrote:
mayflower park will need to go to the people to decide on, this is not a decision that the council can take, its not up to them. this is what royston smith and his high life friends want and not what the people of southampton want.

Quite right Southy.
.
All they can think of is pandering to their mates.
.
Who the hell wants more bl**dy offices and flats

woo hoo..flats...offices
...yay great waterfront attraction.Why not push the boat out,why not maybe.. a 'sea-life center'..that would create jobs and could be used for educational purposes and save the poor kids of southampton from traveling to portsmouth ;)

Name of developers????????

Another non-story from the echo. One thing Southampton does need is an indoor arena, fed up with having to go to Bournemouth or London to see a band. If hotels and flats help pay for this then so be it.

What people need to realise is that to build any leasure facilities which almost always make only small profits if any, hotels and flats are also needed as the developers just won't make the investment.

Why "luxury"? Get real, we are in a finacial downturn, recession, boom & bust, if the press is to be believed, there is no money available, so what we need is a budget solution to make the area look good and be functional, not another bunch of empty offices, unsold luxury flats, and unused eating establishments of which there already too many. More of a marina, leisure type layout with tourists in mind, and adaptable for accommodating the Boat Show and other exhibitions.

Lone Ranger wrote:

southy wrote:
mayflower park will need to go to the people to decide on, this is not a decision that the council can take, its not up to them. this is what royston smith and his high life friends want and not what the people of southampton want.

Quite right Southy.
.
All they can think of is pandering to their mates.
.
Who the hell wants more bl**dy offices and flats

there are terms and conditions over mayflower park, break those conditions and the land reverts back to the dove family who i have close contact with.
one of those condition is that the park can not be closed for more than 10 days to the public in one year.
the council seems to think that all that knows about the park and its conditions have all die off, i got news for them they have not and they are getting up set over this. this tory council can say good bye to controlling the council after may next year its going to kick back on them.

Perhaps if the Council had not let what existed already fall apart/be closed down/knocked down to make way for industrial space then we would still have a lovely old-fashioned waterfront and wouldn't have to pay through the nose for a new one, which won't live up to many others because it is brand new and will probably be a concrete and metal monstrosity like West Quay!

If there is a need for a Titanic museum, this is the area where it should be located, not at the Civic Centre.

Mayflower Park is part of the City's heritage, and should be maintained.

Flats and office blocks. How many more does the city need? More consideration should be given to leisure and pleasure.

I hope the designers build on the details previously provided last year in the Echo regarding this site...they all sounded very promising then so I hope this has continued!

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/4356224.
Coming_to_Southampto
n_s_waterfront___/

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
Why does there need to be offices built down there? Offices need to be away from this part of town otherwise traffic will increase massively. Besides offices look really ugly when they are empty! This needs to look good from the water with all the cruiseships coming in and really put Southampton on the map...I think the developers need to look at something like the O2 arena for inspiration...I would also like to see somewhere for people to get views across the city and water like the Spinnaker tower...maybe this can be built into the multipurpose venue with a restaurant at the top...don't bother with shops Southampton has enough of them as it is!!! Quality dining, entertainment, and a family location to see the cruiseships...with shuttle buses to and from WestQuay for the shops and the station... I'd love to be involved with the development of this area...

No developer will spend a penny without this project being "mixed use". Offices, residential, leisure and retail are all important parts of that mix - whether you like it or not.

Martin
You are spot on with this comment.
However the Council will have an important part to play in the planning brief.
Hopefully they will want to assure the development is not bland in design and provides for more income to the city in terms of employment and rates revenue and a more suitable site for the Boat Show.
ABp as part owner of the land will also not want a repetition of the Dibden Bay scenario where they sold off land to create Hythe Marina and then found the well heeled residents didn't wnt a container port next door.
I am sure the future of Mayflower Park will have to be maintained (and possibly improved upon) as, I believe, the Hampshire Act covers the legalities of this open space

MartinWellbourne wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
Why does there need to be offices built down there? Offices need to be away from this part of town otherwise traffic will increase massively. Besides offices look really ugly when they are empty! This needs to look good from the water with all the cruiseships coming in and really put Southampton on the map...I think the developers need to look at something like the O2 arena for inspiration...I would also like to see somewhere for people to get views across the city and water like the Spinnaker tower...maybe this can be built into the multipurpose venue with a restaurant at the top...don't bother with shops Southampton has enough of them as it is!!! Quality dining, entertainment, and a family location to see the cruiseships...with shuttle buses to and from WestQuay for the shops and the station... I'd love to be involved with the development of this area...

No developer will spend a penny without this project being "mixed use". Offices, residential, leisure and retail are all important parts of that mix - whether you like it or not.

and we go to many that are empty all ready, mayflower park belongs to the people of southampton not the council, the council is only the guardians and not the owners.

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

southy wrote: mayflower park will need to go to the people to decide on, this is not a decision that the council can take, its not up to them. this is what royston smith and his high life friends want and not what the people of southampton want.

Quite right Southy. . All they can think of is pandering to their mates. . Who the hell wants more bl**dy offices and flats

there are terms and conditions over mayflower park, break those conditions and the land reverts back to the dove family who i have close contact with. one of those condition is that the park can not be closed for more than 10 days to the public in one year. the council seems to think that all that knows about the park and its conditions have all die off, i got news for them they have not and they are getting up set over this. this tory council can say good bye to controlling the council after may next year its going to kick back on them.

They already prevent access for more than 10 days with the board show set-up and teardown in addition to the show itself.
.
How have they been able to get around the rules?

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
Why does there need to be offices built down there? Offices need to be away from this part of town otherwise traffic will increase massively. Besides offices look really ugly when they are empty! This needs to look good from the water with all the cruiseships coming in and really put Southampton on the map...I think the developers need to look at something like the O2 arena for inspiration...I would also like to see somewhere for people to get views across the city and water like the Spinnaker tower...maybe this can be built into the multipurpose venue with a restaurant at the top...don't bother with shops Southampton has enough of them as it is!!! Quality dining, entertainment, and a family location to see the cruiseships...with shuttle buses to and from WestQuay for the shops and the station... I'd love to be involved with the development of this area...

I'd also love you to be involved with the development, along with Southy.

Buried in the foundations.

Build over the lot, park included. Offices apartments whatever, the place is an eyesore.

Thought I saw somewhere that the site was owned by Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown???

Seems to be many varying opinions as to what can and cant be done on mayflower park.
This angle has been talked about for years, would it be too much to ask the Echo do do a bit of local digging and actually find the truth to this issue?

Ah-ha, found it...
http://www.publicten
ders.net/tender/5817
5

"The freehold ownership of the site is held by Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown and it is anticipated that the core development opportunity will comprise the following parcels of land:

Land bound by Herbert Walker Avenue and West Quay Road,

Land bound by West Quay Road and Harbour Parade (the De Vere Hotel car park),

Mayflower Park..."

They would not included it in the tender if they did not own the land.

MartinWellbourne wrote:

southy wrote:

Lone Ranger wrote:

southy wrote: mayflower park will need to go to the people to decide on, this is not a decision that the council can take, its not up to them. this is what royston smith and his high life friends want and not what the people of southampton want.

Quite right Southy. . All they can think of is pandering to their mates. . Who the hell wants more bl**dy offices and flats

there are terms and conditions over mayflower park, break those conditions and the land reverts back to the dove family who i have close contact with. one of those condition is that the park can not be closed for more than 10 days to the public in one year. the council seems to think that all that knows about the park and its conditions have all die off, i got news for them they have not and they are getting up set over this. this tory council can say good bye to controlling the council after may next year its going to kick back on them.

They already prevent access for more than 10 days with the board show set-up and teardown in addition to the show itself.
.
How have they been able to get around the rules?

no they have not, i all ready tested that. they can not close the park for more than 10 days. the park was closed to the public at 10pm on the thursday before the show and reopen to the public from 10pm on that last sunday of the show.
what they done was stop any one from driving in there for a longer period. which they can do, but people on foot they cant stop.
and the park is open 24/7 for small commercial boats to land on the quay wall to the park.
i can remember old man sanger who died a fair while back now. when the council use to lock the gates at night he use to take the gates of there hinges and throw them in the river, and when they threaten to take him to court over it, he just said dont threaten do it take me to court, but they all ways back away because of the terms and condition on that park limits what the council can do. they can not change those condition with out involving the dove family in any meetings over the park condition being change. if you wish to know more about contact pat shooter his step-father was a councillor at the time when all this was set up. who are related to me.

RobJChase wrote:
Ah-ha, found it... http://www.publicten ders.net/tender/5817 5 "The freehold ownership of the site is held by Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown and it is anticipated that the core development opportunity will comprise the following parcels of land: Land bound by Herbert Walker Avenue and West Quay Road, Land bound by West Quay Road and Harbour Parade (the De Vere Hotel car park), Mayflower Park..." They would not included it in the tender if they did not own the land.

But authorities have been know to make errors or not research properly,and as my earlier post suggests, this point needs total clarification.

RobJChase wrote:
Thought I saw somewhere that the site was owned by Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown???

abp(j) owns the land either side of the park and the pier, the council owns the land out side the park where abp(j), mayflower park it self is owned by the people of southampton and the council is it guardians the keeper of the park on behave of the people with term and condition that apply, the crown estate owns from the highest tide water mark which comes round every 200 years and right out to the country sea limits.
BUT in reality the crown owns all land also and your deeds on any land that you might own in reality you are the caretaker of that land on behave of the crown. you can check this up with a mr butterfield at the southampton crown estate agents office.

Southy

You are correct in so far as the Hampshire Act of 1983 allows for Mayflower Park to be closed to the public for special events for up to 34 days a year.
Section 60 was included to allow the Boat Show to open for 10 days, including two weekends and that fits in with your info.
What interests me is your mention of the Dove family.
Some while ago I researched the development of 'Millbrook Bay'
The deeds go back to 1860 and there was a court case (Arbitration Hearing) held in London between in October 1926 concluding with a signed agreement dated February 1927 when the Southern Railway Company was given the right to buy 474 acres of mudland and 68 acres of shoreline from Marianne Vaudrey Barker- Mill, the Rev Cyril Polhill Edwards and Lt Col William Barrow Simonds (Rtd) for the princely sum of £45,004.
The land in question ended up as the Western Docks.
Separately HM Secretary of State for War entered into an agreement with the Southern Railway and the Alderman & Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton for the 'Deeds and Documents relating to Land and Premises at West Quay Southampton'
Undoubtedly this is how the City of Southampton' came to benefit from the subsequent infill of the bay for port development, including responsibility for Mayflower Park.
The interesting thing here is, despite many names being included on the title deeds not once is the Dove family mentioned.
Would be interested in some hard facts here

@southy

Thought thats what I said...

The freehold ownership of the site is held by Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown.

Best to call the Democratic Services dept at Southampton City Council

ben do it say any thing about sidford parish has they also owed land in the bay has did freemantle parish. there was a number of owners, but some company done all the dealing you mention there name awhile back.
doves boat yard was on the corner to the bay. it had a public hard, a public slip way and a public boat yard, plus what doves was building, the public slipway and public boat yard moved up to millbrook point has part of the agreement. whitch was lost in the end with no replacement because of the container port, but doves had been on that corner for a fair number of hundreds of years and owned the land. doves use to make those liberty cutters for tall sail ships and made the old cracknor hard ferry boat. also did you come across the 4 cottages that use to be on the river side to millbrook station those was not owned by barker-mills family, but owned by the guy who bought up part of st marks church, whitch the docks though the barker-mills family owned (it was the waste land that use to be next to the dry dock on the up river side). the docks ended up leasing this ground and buying it out right under nationalision of the docks. you got to be very careful with barker-mills they claimed land that was not there,s in some cases, there is a high number of cases relating to that family and there land grabbing thats come to light over the last 40 years.

So no doubt Sir Norman Foster will be appointed by this far sighted council if they want a top man. Perhaps something similar to the Gherkin on the Thames - Soton could have a limp penis to match the future of the so called city

RobJChase wrote:
@southy

Thought thats what I said...

The freehold ownership of the site is held by Southampton City Council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown.

Best to call the Democratic Services dept at Southampton City Council

if i had the money i would put in to buy the land for the royal pier and rebuild it, then give it to the people of southampton with term and dictions and let southampton council be guardians. the sort of terms i would give would be some thing like this, people will have the right of access to walk, fish and land there boats free of charge, but will be closed for 10 days of the year for maintenance whitch could be used for the boat show. what building on the pier and for what use will be left down to the people of southampton to decide.

southy wrote:
ben do it say any thing about sidford parish has they also owed land in the bay has did freemantle parish. there was a number of owners, but some company done all the dealing you mention there name awhile back.
doves boat yard was on the corner to the bay. it had a public hard, a public slip way and a public boat yard, plus what doves was building, the public slipway and public boat yard moved up to millbrook point has part of the agreement. whitch was lost in the end with no replacement because of the container port, but doves had been on that corner for a fair number of hundreds of years and owned the land. doves use to make those liberty cutters for tall sail ships and made the old cracknor hard ferry boat. also did you come across the 4 cottages that use to be on the river side to millbrook station those was not owned by barker-mills family, but owned by the guy who bought up part of st marks church, whitch the docks though the barker-mills family owned (it was the waste land that use to be next to the dry dock on the up river side). the docks ended up leasing this ground and buying it out right under nationalision of the docks. you got to be very careful with barker-mills they claimed land that was not there,s in some cases, there is a high number of cases relating to that family and there land grabbing thats come to light over the last 40 years.

All I can work on is the registered title deeds which are legal documents.
No information is shown about the people you mention. There is mention of an existing tenancy of Richard Hayward Woodcock of the Millbrook Hard under an existing lease dated 4 October 1923 which ran for 21 years until 1944 at a yearly rent of £30 when the land reverted to the Southern Railway. This lease covered an area of 3 Rod and 30 Perch and was designated as a boatyard so this may have been the Doves yard you mention

MartinWellbourne wrote:

allsaintsnocurves wrote: Why does there need to be offices built down there? Offices need to be away from this part of town otherwise traffic will increase massively. Besides offices look really ugly when they are empty! This needs to look good from the water with all the cruiseships coming in and really put Southampton on the map...I think the developers need to look at something like the O2 arena for inspiration...I would also like to see somewhere for people to get views across the city and water like the Spinnaker tower...maybe this can be built into the multipurpose venue with a restaurant at the top...don't bother with shops Southampton has enough of them as it is!!! Quality dining, entertainment, and a family location to see the cruiseships...with shuttle buses to and from WestQuay for the shops and the station... I'd love to be involved with the development of this area...

No developer will spend a penny without this project being "mixed use". Offices, residential, leisure and retail are all important parts of that mix - whether you like it or not.

This is not a question of whether I like it or not it is just pointless putting more shops down there when Southampton has enough empty shops on the high street and Westquay and Westquay 2 coming and the new Bargate and the new Marlands "the Mall"...I understand they need a mixed use...so will probably need to incorporate a hotel there and apartments...but not shops or offices! That would kill the area off...the traffic is already going to be horendous down there.

Ben Doone wrote:

southy wrote:
ben do it say any thing about sidford parish has they also owed land in the bay has did freemantle parish. there was a number of owners, but some company done all the dealing you mention there name awhile back.
doves boat yard was on the corner to the bay. it had a public hard, a public slip way and a public boat yard, plus what doves was building, the public slipway and public boat yard moved up to millbrook point has part of the agreement. whitch was lost in the end with no replacement because of the container port, but doves had been on that corner for a fair number of hundreds of years and owned the land. doves use to make those liberty cutters for tall sail ships and made the old cracknor hard ferry boat. also did you come across the 4 cottages that use to be on the river side to millbrook station those was not owned by barker-mills family, but owned by the guy who bought up part of st marks church, whitch the docks though the barker-mills family owned (it was the waste land that use to be next to the dry dock on the up river side). the docks ended up leasing this ground and buying it out right under nationalision of the docks. you got to be very careful with barker-mills they claimed land that was not there,s in some cases, there is a high number of cases relating to that family and there land grabbing thats come to light over the last 40 years.

All I can work on is the registered title deeds which are legal documents.
No information is shown about the people you mention. There is mention of an existing tenancy of Richard Hayward Woodcock of the Millbrook Hard under an existing lease dated 4 October 1923 which ran for 21 years until 1944 at a yearly rent of £30 when the land reverted to the Southern Railway. This lease covered an area of 3 Rod and 30 Perch and was designated as a boatyard so this may have been the Doves yard you mention

hayward was up the other end of the docks to millbrook bay where doves boat yard was (millbrook bay was one end of the western docks, while millbrook point was the other end of the western docks, ( millbrook bay also had another name but i cant remember at the moment what it was))
at millbrook point there was all ready some thing there for the people to use had been there very long time before the railway and much longer than barker-mills moved into the area, barker-mill lived in side southampton wall a lot longer than than they lived out side of it. made there money has a merchant and then buying the last mill on mill brook (at waterhouse lane), and went from there and that was before they was made a lord and lady.
all the way along millbrook shore line there was spots for people to land there boats but only the two spots where they could bring there boats onto dry land, and that was millbrook point and doves boat yard.

Peter,

Interestingly the map attached to the title deeds shows the old Train Ferry Jetty to the west of Royal Pier.
Further along it also shows Portland Creek (possibly where the storm drains now flow into the Test by Dock Gate 8) The Barker Mill Estate land was bounded on the eastern side by Four Posts Creek and to the western side by a line running up to the old Isolation Hospital. This area is described as Millbrook Point. I guess somewhere along here was the Woodcock boatyard.
I am sure you are aware that the actual shoreline at the time ran along the railway just south of Millbrook road close to Millbrook Station and what was then called Soton West station (now Soton Central)

west of the pier ben i hope not it be in the water, portland creek is a storm drain now but the creek is still flowing though the drain. that creek that ran down by four post was the one that use to flow though old sidford village and flowed into the bay, there was another stream that came out where doves boat yard was that flowed in the river. (the most southerly spot of millbrook on the river test shores), the next stream going up river in millbrook was the one that flowed into the tidal lake (lakeland drive), then the next stream in which millbrook was named after was mill brook which flowed into the test at water house lane (where the old sailors return pub use to be).
barker-mill has never owned land pass where the dry dock is in western docks, on the shore line, that line your looking at is the old southampton bough town boundry (before it was move to run up tanners brook) line that ran though the old isolation hospital, millbrook point is where the hospital use to be and was owned by MOD it was a firing range for blighmont volunteers before it became a hospital, then the MOD sold the land into 5 parcels after it had finished being an hospital (the hospital was moved into the old chess hospital in hoe lane (oakley road) later called western hospital in the 70's)
in between millbrook point and the dry dock was the land that was owned by st marks was part of the old millbrook monastery this land was owned by haywood
woodcock boatyard was on the other side of redbridge point more up river they also own a yard up tanners brook.
the rail line ran parallel to millbrook shore line there was about 50 to 100 yards of dry and salt marsh between rail line and the stony shore line.
like i said about barker-mills got to be careful in what they say is theirs they are land grabbers, has babycham has just found out.

back later ben got to tash out for the evening great chatting to by the enjoy it all the time.