2,000 jobs at Southampton docks to be secured by £150m container ship plan

Southampton Docks

Southampton Docks

First published in Business Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Politics and business reporter

IN JUST four days time work will begin to secure the global future of Southampton ’s historic port – and safeguard 2,000 jobs.

The long-awaited £150m expansion of the container terminal will enable the port to handle the next generation of mega container ships being brought into service by the world’s major shipping lines.

Hundreds of jobs will also be created as Southampton bids to retain its status as one of Britain’s premier ports.

Docks owners ABP will officially begin the work on Thursday as latest figures reveal almost 38 million tonnes of freight came through Southampton Port last year.

It handled 1.6m containers, confirming its position as the UK’s second largest container port behind Felixstowe.

The upgrade project, which was delayed by months of red tape and a legal challenge by Felixtowe, will create around 200 jobs as well as safeguarding 800 direct jobs and 1,200 indirect jobs.

And it comes just weeks after two of the world’s largest ocean carriers – Hapag- Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, berthed in tandem at the container terminal for the first time ushering in “a new era”. Each are capable of carrying more than 13,000 boxes.

Berths 201 and 202 in the western docks are being combined with a reconstructed 500m long quay wall and a deeper 16m berth pocket to restore the container terminal’s four-berth capacity.

An increase in size of container ships has meant the current deepsea berths, 204 to 207, can no longer handle four of the largest vessels at the same time.

The new berth will be ready for operation in early 2014.

Four new giant quayside cranes will be ordered.

The project will cost around £90m with additional dredging of a deeper main channel, still awaiting permission, pushing the total value up to £150m.

Major works must be carried out between now and March to avoid disturbing migratory Atlantic salmon.

Port director Doug Morrison said without being able to handle the next generation of container ships Southampton would “struggle” to remain competitive.

“This new berth is absolutely essential for the long term-future of the port,” he said.

He said while the Southampton project, along with the expansion of Felixstowe and DP World ’s new Thames Gateway container terminal would create “excess capacity” in the UK it was a “vital” long term investment.

Mr Morrison said Southampton still had a location advantage as vessels calling at the port need only make a minimum deviation from the main shipping lanes, thereby offering their customers faster transit times Chris Lewis, director of DP World Southampton, which runs the container terminal, said the upgrade would underscore Southampton’s position as the first and last deep-sea port of call in Northern Europe for the Far East.

Berths 201 and 202 were the port’s original container berths and welcomed the first deep-sea container vessel, Kamakura Maru, 40 years ago. But they ceased to handle containers in the 1980s and are now used for roll-on roll-off vessels transporting cars.

The upgrade project is part of a plan to boost handling capacity from two million to 2.7 million 20ft equivalent container boxes by 2020.

Comments (65)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:52pm Mon 24 Sep 12

MisterGrimsdale says...

If only Doug Morrison had talked to Southy first. Southampton is going to be downgraded to a feeder port. Southy said so.
All that money wasted. Southy could have told DP World about the EU's strategic plans to build a new container port near Avonmouth. It's a secret known only to Southy and the bloke who works behind the bar who told him.
If only Doug Morrison had talked to Southy first. Southampton is going to be downgraded to a feeder port. Southy said so. All that money wasted. Southy could have told DP World about the EU's strategic plans to build a new container port near Avonmouth. It's a secret known only to Southy and the bloke who works behind the bar who told him. MisterGrimsdale
  • Score: 0

1:22pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

MisterGrimsdale wrote:
If only Doug Morrison had talked to Southy first. Southampton is going to be downgraded to a feeder port. Southy said so.
All that money wasted. Southy could have told DP World about the EU's strategic plans to build a new container port near Avonmouth. It's a secret known only to Southy and the bloke who works behind the bar who told him.
No its a case of having the right contract at the right time to be able to find out whats going on.

They are not building this freight rail line from China to Germany for fun, its for container traffic,
Test pillling in the river severn, is not done for fun, its done to get select the new western coast container port,

The up grading of the western line and new tracks, for Shell heaven and Portbury.
And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port
[quote][p][bold]MisterGrimsdale[/bold] wrote: If only Doug Morrison had talked to Southy first. Southampton is going to be downgraded to a feeder port. Southy said so. All that money wasted. Southy could have told DP World about the EU's strategic plans to build a new container port near Avonmouth. It's a secret known only to Southy and the bloke who works behind the bar who told him.[/p][/quote]No its a case of having the right contract at the right time to be able to find out whats going on. They are not building this freight rail line from China to Germany for fun, its for container traffic, Test pillling in the river severn, is not done for fun, its done to get select the new western coast container port, The up grading of the western line and new tracks, for Shell heaven and Portbury. And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port southy
  • Score: 0

2:38pm Mon 24 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus? phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Lone Ranger. says...

You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured Lone Ranger.
  • Score: 0

3:16pm Mon 24 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden. Well done ABP loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:22pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Cyber__Fug says...

loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP
Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built.

If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden. Well done ABP[/p][/quote]Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built. If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

3:54pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

Cyber__Fug wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP
Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built.

If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.
They pulled out because they got cheaper berthing and operations cost else where, Shipping will go in the end where they can make the most profit and the smallest in costs
[quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden. Well done ABP[/p][/quote]Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built. If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.[/p][/quote]They pulled out because they got cheaper berthing and operations cost else where, Shipping will go in the end where they can make the most profit and the smallest in costs southy
  • Score: 0

4:01pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here. southy
  • Score: 0

4:08pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Sunny Saint says...

This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-) Sunny Saint
  • Score: 0

4:15pm Mon 24 Sep 12

aldermoorboy says...

Great news.
Great news. aldermoorboy
  • Score: 0

4:22pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Georgem says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
Southy, earlier in this thread you stated:

"And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port"

Now, only a few hours later, you are claiming that feeder ports are definitely always busier than hubs.

I think you're confusing yourself.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]Southy, earlier in this thread you stated: "And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port" Now, only a few hours later, you are claiming that feeder ports are definitely always busier than hubs. I think you're confusing yourself. Georgem
  • Score: 0

5:32pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Just another reader says...

So much drivel. I'd love for people to actually see and comprehend what we are trying (and succeeding) to achieve at DP world. We don't need to be the biggest, just the most efficient terminal providing reliable service. We rarely stop for weather unless it is not safe to work. Felixstowe regularly has to totally stop operations for 24 hours at a time for wind alone.

This is great news, and I'd like to point out the work actually started years ago on this project.
So much drivel. I'd love for people to actually see and comprehend what we are trying (and succeeding) to achieve at DP world. We don't need to be the biggest, just the most efficient terminal providing reliable service. We rarely stop for weather unless it is not safe to work. Felixstowe regularly has to totally stop operations for 24 hours at a time for wind alone. This is great news, and I'd like to point out the work actually started years ago on this project. Just another reader
  • Score: 0

6:00pm Mon 24 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
Cyber__Fug wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP
Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built.

If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.
They pulled out because they got cheaper berthing and operations cost else where, Shipping will go in the end where they can make the most profit and the smallest in costs
Southy
I am sure we all would be really interested to know what the comparative berthing and operations costs are in Felixstowe relative to Soton.
I seem to recollect that not long after Maersk moved their Soton business to Felixstowe there were complaints from cargo receivers after Felixstowe introduced higher charges due to supposed increased security charges
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cyber__Fug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden. Well done ABP[/p][/quote]Totally agree and then Southampton will be able to take Maersks new generation of 18000 teus that are currently being built. If it hadn't had been for the nimbys then Maerrk wouldn't have pulled out in the first place.[/p][/quote]They pulled out because they got cheaper berthing and operations cost else where, Shipping will go in the end where they can make the most profit and the smallest in costs[/p][/quote]Southy I am sure we all would be really interested to know what the comparative berthing and operations costs are in Felixstowe relative to Soton. I seem to recollect that not long after Maersk moved their Soton business to Felixstowe there were complaints from cargo receivers after Felixstowe introduced higher charges due to supposed increased security charges phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Mon 24 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton. The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships". OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Mon 24 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.
In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:52pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Torchie1 says...

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
[quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Mon 24 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
Although I accept the decision, I still think it a wrong'un!
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.[/p][/quote]Although I accept the decision, I still think it a wrong'un! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:16pm Mon 24 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.[/p][/quote]Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port. many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted. They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:28pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

Georgem wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
Southy, earlier in this thread you stated:

"And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port"

Now, only a few hours later, you are claiming that feeder ports are definitely always busier than hubs.

I think you're confusing yourself.
Yes I was looking at all the smaller ports along the english channel, and doing a bit of research in the japan feeder ports, they have more shipping traffic than the main hub ports.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]Southy, earlier in this thread you stated: "And being a feeder port do not mean its not going to be busy, it could end up being more busier than a hub port" Now, only a few hours later, you are claiming that feeder ports are definitely always busier than hubs. I think you're confusing yourself.[/p][/quote]Yes I was looking at all the smaller ports along the english channel, and doing a bit of research in the japan feeder ports, they have more shipping traffic than the main hub ports. southy
  • Score: 0

11:33pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?
What you know as the New Forest now days was not the same as the one William I knew and created.

The reclaim land is only meant for Port Related work, that do not mean a port of any kind, when they stop pumping silt onto that reclain land in the 80;s, it then lost its port related work, for reclaiming it was the port related work, some where to dump the silt out of the river channel.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.[/p][/quote]Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port. many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted. They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?[/p][/quote]What you know as the New Forest now days was not the same as the one William I knew and created. The reclaim land is only meant for Port Related work, that do not mean a port of any kind, when they stop pumping silt onto that reclain land in the 80;s, it then lost its port related work, for reclaiming it was the port related work, some where to dump the silt out of the river channel. southy
  • Score: 0

11:37pm Mon 24 Sep 12

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?
I think a thirteen month public enquiry at which anyone could speak gave all interested parties an opportunity to express their opinion. For every one complaining that it was the wrong result, there's another that is happy with the verdict of the report that came out nine years ago. The report in its entirety is still available on the internet if some points have become a bit cloudy with time.It would be a dull place if everybody agreed with every decision and there would be no point in looking at the posts on this site.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.[/p][/quote]Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port. many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted. They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?[/p][/quote]I think a thirteen month public enquiry at which anyone could speak gave all interested parties an opportunity to express their opinion. For every one complaining that it was the wrong result, there's another that is happy with the verdict of the report that came out nine years ago. The report in its entirety is still available on the internet if some points have become a bit cloudy with time.It would be a dull place if everybody agreed with every decision and there would be no point in looking at the posts on this site. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

11:38pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.
Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.[/p][/quote]Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide. southy
  • Score: 0

11:43pm Mon 24 Sep 12

southy says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".
You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port.
And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton. The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".[/p][/quote]You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port. And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes. southy
  • Score: 0

11:55pm Mon 24 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Southy's up to his usual knock the port or the city. go to Liverpool as I've suggested before you might win a council seat there?
Southy's up to his usual knock the port or the city. go to Liverpool as I've suggested before you might win a council seat there? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:59pm Mon 24 Sep 12

loosehead says...

Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?
I think a thirteen month public enquiry at which anyone could speak gave all interested parties an opportunity to express their opinion. For every one complaining that it was the wrong result, there's another that is happy with the verdict of the report that came out nine years ago. The report in its entirety is still available on the internet if some points have become a bit cloudy with time.It would be a dull place if everybody agreed with every decision and there would be no point in looking at the posts on this site.
Why was there no public enquiry about the Hythe Marina? was it because the snobs ( would be) who now live in what was a wildlife area don't want the docks next to them?
With the new planning laws ABP will be back & you've got a docks even if you don't want it.
I personally think they should restore the bay & then no employer in the city limits should employ anyone from the waterside giving any jobs to city dwellers first
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.[/p][/quote]Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port. many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted. They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?[/p][/quote]I think a thirteen month public enquiry at which anyone could speak gave all interested parties an opportunity to express their opinion. For every one complaining that it was the wrong result, there's another that is happy with the verdict of the report that came out nine years ago. The report in its entirety is still available on the internet if some points have become a bit cloudy with time.It would be a dull place if everybody agreed with every decision and there would be no point in looking at the posts on this site.[/p][/quote]Why was there no public enquiry about the Hythe Marina? was it because the snobs ( would be) who now live in what was a wildlife area don't want the docks next to them? With the new planning laws ABP will be back & you've got a docks even if you don't want it. I personally think they should restore the bay & then no employer in the city limits should employ anyone from the waterside giving any jobs to city dwellers first loosehead
  • Score: 0

12:04am Tue 25 Sep 12

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago!
Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc...

It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.
Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port.
many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted.
They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?
What you know as the New Forest now days was not the same as the one William I knew and created.

The reclaim land is only meant for Port Related work, that do not mean a port of any kind, when they stop pumping silt onto that reclain land in the 80;s, it then lost its port related work, for reclaiming it was the port related work, some where to dump the silt out of the river channel.
How B++dy old are you? the William you knew?
Let's get it right where were the objectors to all the housing being built on the Waterside?
This was a place with a few villages then Fawley refinery then the Houses so most of these housing estates were built for housing industrial workers not up themselves snobs who don't want their young to work in a Dock.
These are the very people I thought you'd be against COMRADE?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]When two sides state their case and the adjudicating power makes a decision, it's called democracy. Be a man and accept that the decision will please some people and there's no point throwing the toys out because it doesn't please you.[/p][/quote]Torchie since the decision to not allow a container port at what can only be called Dibden as there's no longer a bay there was made we've had many watersiders come on these posts saying they were in favour of the port. many were either never asked or their opinions were ignored by the people who were suppose to represent them because it went against what they wanted. They even tried to say it was part of the New Forest National Park but how can reclaimed land be part Of William the conquerors forest he never reclaimed it did he?[/p][/quote]What you know as the New Forest now days was not the same as the one William I knew and created. The reclaim land is only meant for Port Related work, that do not mean a port of any kind, when they stop pumping silt onto that reclain land in the 80;s, it then lost its port related work, for reclaiming it was the port related work, some where to dump the silt out of the river channel.[/p][/quote]How B++dy old are you? the William you knew? Let's get it right where were the objectors to all the housing being built on the Waterside? This was a place with a few villages then Fawley refinery then the Houses so most of these housing estates were built for housing industrial workers not up themselves snobs who don't want their young to work in a Dock. These are the very people I thought you'd be against COMRADE? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:24am Tue 25 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.
Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.
Suggest you speak to someone with a bit of marine knowledge Southy.
It is the depth of underkeel clearance which is the ultimate requirement for big ships and with the channel deepening Soton will meet current requirement.
According to industry experts, provided there is sufficient draft to accommodate vessels, small tidal range is very helpful.
Soton has rising water 17 out of every 24 hours (as a consequence of the double tide) and this is looked upon as beneficial
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.[/p][/quote]Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.[/p][/quote]Suggest you speak to someone with a bit of marine knowledge Southy. It is the depth of underkeel clearance which is the ultimate requirement for big ships and with the channel deepening Soton will meet current requirement. According to industry experts, provided there is sufficient draft to accommodate vessels, small tidal range is very helpful. Soton has rising water 17 out of every 24 hours (as a consequence of the double tide) and this is looked upon as beneficial phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

10:31am Tue 25 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".
You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port.
And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.
Southy
Suggest you undertake some research.
Look at the Container terminal website
In recent times they have brought in 6 new post panamax cranes (which you can see from a distance) to handle the new generation of wider container ships.
In addition the new facility at 201/2 berth will add a further 6 new cranes!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton. The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".[/p][/quote]You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port. And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.[/p][/quote]Southy Suggest you undertake some research. Look at the Container terminal website In recent times they have brought in 6 new post panamax cranes (which you can see from a distance) to handle the new generation of wider container ships. In addition the new facility at 201/2 berth will add a further 6 new cranes!!!!! phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

12:28pm Tue 25 Sep 12

snapperdownunder says...

loosehead wrote:
Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden.
Well done ABP
Couldn't agree more. Congrats to ABP.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Once this has been done next thing to do is build a new container port on Dibden. Well done ABP[/p][/quote]Couldn't agree more. Congrats to ABP. snapperdownunder
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 25 Sep 12

Beer Monster says...

loosehead wrote:
Why was there no public enquiry about the Hythe Marina? was it because the snobs ( would be) who now live in what was a wildlife area don't want the docks next to them? With the new planning laws ABP will be back & you've got a docks even if you don't want it. I personally think they should restore the bay & then no employer in the city limits should employ anyone from the waterside giving any jobs to city dwellers first

Dunno why there wasn't an enquiry, but I remember when it was just a big plot of reclaimed land as I used to go fishing off there with my father 30 years ago. If I remember correctly public access was restricted to the perimeter of the plot, as it is today, so maybe they could bypass the need for an enquiry at the time. Any experts able to comment?

I've always been for the development of Dibden Bay - the land there is virtually devoid of anything (apart from a load of junk from years of fly tipping and a plethora of overgrown weeds). If we can help the city prosper economically and socially, then why not?

If they could find the resources to regenerate the railway and/or build a cycle path through to Marchwood, then I'd actively support their plans.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: Why was there no public enquiry about the Hythe Marina? was it because the snobs ( would be) who now live in what was a wildlife area don't want the docks next to them? With the new planning laws ABP will be back & you've got a docks even if you don't want it. I personally think they should restore the bay & then no employer in the city limits should employ anyone from the waterside giving any jobs to city dwellers first[/p][/quote] Dunno why there wasn't an enquiry, but I remember when it was just a big plot of reclaimed land as I used to go fishing off there with my father 30 years ago. If I remember correctly public access was restricted to the perimeter of the plot, as it is today, so maybe they could bypass the need for an enquiry at the time. Any experts able to comment? I've always been for the development of Dibden Bay - the land there is virtually devoid of anything (apart from a load of junk from years of fly tipping and a plethora of overgrown weeds). If we can help the city prosper economically and socially, then why not? If they could find the resources to regenerate the railway and/or build a cycle path through to Marchwood, then I'd actively support their plans. Beer Monster
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Tue 25 Sep 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

southy wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote: In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.
Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.
Hi Southy I'm afraid it's the opposite. In the Bristol Channel there are some big tidal ranges which is a problem that Avonmouth Portbury and the rest have to overcome with very deep dredges and deep quays to stop ships bottoming out when berthed. If the ports introduce intertidal locks this restricts ship movements and times and is a big advantage for Southampton.
Regarding the Chinese rail link you mentioned, this is not a new railway, but in 2008 an agreement was signed to create a regular freight link on the existing Trans SIberian Railway terminating in Hamburg. It has limitations on capacity and it also loses time as the gauge changes twice en route and every wagon has to have its wheelsets changed. it may be a little quicker if all the customs decide to cooperate but Russia has a poor record of political interference and corruption. I don't think you will see any independent shipping company using it any time soon.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: In business the big Companies look for the best financial deal to get best value, but don't always get what they pay for, the double tides have always been an asset for the Port of Southampton and some Companies that have gone elsewhere have come back again. There is plenty of healthy competition in the UK and this keeps the operators on their toes. Felixstowe is a very good Port and little wonder that some Companies prefer to go there. The current rail infrastructure here, is a bit limited with longer trains causing a few problems but nothing that cannot be addressed with sensible planning.[/p][/quote]Double tides also go against us, by having a double tide our high water is a lot lower than any where else in the country, our tidel range is very shallow we only get a 5 meter max difference between low water and high water on spring tides, where as neaps tides are even worse there can be less than 1 meter between low water and high water. really there is no added avantage of having a double tide.[/p][/quote]Hi Southy I'm afraid it's the opposite. In the Bristol Channel there are some big tidal ranges which is a problem that Avonmouth Portbury and the rest have to overcome with very deep dredges and deep quays to stop ships bottoming out when berthed. If the ports introduce intertidal locks this restricts ship movements and times and is a big advantage for Southampton. Regarding the Chinese rail link you mentioned, this is not a new railway, but in 2008 an agreement was signed to create a regular freight link on the existing Trans SIberian Railway terminating in Hamburg. It has limitations on capacity and it also loses time as the gauge changes twice en route and every wagon has to have its wheelsets changed. it may be a little quicker if all the customs decide to cooperate but Russia has a poor record of political interference and corruption. I don't think you will see any independent shipping company using it any time soon. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Tue 25 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

southy wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton.

The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".
You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port.
And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.
Size isn't everything, it is capacity that matters, if there is no reason to make the ships longer, why bother.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]You are either misinformed or telling porkies i.e. Quote "Southampton, Tuesday 21 August 2012: Southampton’s strategic role as a regional gateway for the new generation of ultra-large container ships (ULCS) was reinforced yesterday with calls from two ocean carriers – among the largest and newest in the world – which berthed in tandem at the UK’s only South Coast container terminal, DP World Southampton. The calls by Hapag-Lloyd’s Hamburg Express and UASC’s Jebel Ali, each capable of carrying more than 13,000 TEUs, arrived as the Port of Southampton prepares to start redevelopment works to cement its ability to handle multiple numbers of this next generation of giant container ships".[/p][/quote]You need to do more research, these new ships are wider not longer, the longest Container ships have never called into Southampton and never will they are to long for this port. And if ships get any wider then they to will not be able to off load here, not with out renewing all the cranes.[/p][/quote]Size isn't everything, it is capacity that matters, if there is no reason to make the ships longer, why bother. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

5:54pm Tue 25 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

The largest Container ships appear to be operated by Maersk who pulled out of Southampton for other reasons, there are plans for a 450 metre x 60 metre ship capable of carrying 22,000 TEU, but very few Ports will be able to cope with them, imagine the Insurance claim if a fully laden vessel sank! Not every route would warrant ships of this size, there are plenty that could use Southampton without any problem at all.
The largest Container ships appear to be operated by Maersk who pulled out of Southampton for other reasons, there are plans for a 450 metre x 60 metre ship capable of carrying 22,000 TEU, but very few Ports will be able to cope with them, imagine the Insurance claim if a fully laden vessel sank! Not every route would warrant ships of this size, there are plenty that could use Southampton without any problem at all. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Tue 25 Sep 12

azcaz says...

Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.
[quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now. azcaz
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Tue 25 Sep 12

loosehead says...

azcaz wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.
Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships
[quote][p][bold]azcaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.[/p][/quote]Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down. so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this? Have you seen the area that's sold for housing? that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:50pm Tue 25 Sep 12

azcaz says...

Had ABP got their way & houses built on the Dibden Bay land, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.................
....!!
Had ABP got their way & houses built on the Dibden Bay land, we wouldn't be having this conversation now................. ....!! azcaz
  • Score: 0

12:27am Wed 26 Sep 12

Torchie1 says...

loosehead wrote:
azcaz wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.
Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships
From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]azcaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.[/p][/quote]Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down. so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this? Have you seen the area that's sold for housing? that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships[/p][/quote]From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others? Torchie1
  • Score: 0

7:10am Wed 26 Sep 12

loosehead says...

azcaz wrote:
Had ABP got their way & houses built on the Dibden Bay land, we wouldn't be having this conversation now.................

....!!
But how many Anti housing posts would there have been?
[quote][p][bold]azcaz[/bold] wrote: Had ABP got their way & houses built on the Dibden Bay land, we wouldn't be having this conversation now................. ....!![/p][/quote]But how many Anti housing posts would there have been? loosehead
  • Score: 0

7:33am Wed 26 Sep 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
azcaz wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.
Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships
From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?
Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]azcaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.[/p][/quote]Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down. so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this? Have you seen the area that's sold for housing? that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships[/p][/quote]From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?[/p][/quote]Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

9:41am Wed 26 Sep 12

james47 says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
I agree with Lone Ranger.
(there is always a first)
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured[/p][/quote]I agree with Lone Ranger. (there is always a first) james47
  • Score: 0

10:03am Wed 26 Sep 12

Torchie1 says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
azcaz wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.
Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships
From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?
Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.
Did you explore the possibility of 'underhand behaviour' at the time, no of course you didn't. Like every election which people don't bother to vote at but are always first to complain about the result. The Dibden Bay Inquiry ran for thirteen months with plenty of publicity beforehand which allowed both objectors and supporters to make their points. Organised objectors who felt strongly enough made certain their concerns were raised but everyone was given the chance to air their views and the evidence presented showed only a tiny number of people in favour. Moaning is a British pastime and objectors to the outcome feel hard done by, but the feeling never seems to be strong enough at the time when their efforts could have affected the outcome.
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]azcaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.[/p][/quote]Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down. so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this? Have you seen the area that's sold for housing? that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships[/p][/quote]From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?[/p][/quote]Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.[/p][/quote]Did you explore the possibility of 'underhand behaviour' at the time, no of course you didn't. Like every election which people don't bother to vote at but are always first to complain about the result. The Dibden Bay Inquiry ran for thirteen months with plenty of publicity beforehand which allowed both objectors and supporters to make their points. Organised objectors who felt strongly enough made certain their concerns were raised but everyone was given the chance to air their views and the evidence presented showed only a tiny number of people in favour. Moaning is a British pastime and objectors to the outcome feel hard done by, but the feeling never seems to be strong enough at the time when their efforts could have affected the outcome. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

10:14am Wed 26 Sep 12

loosehead says...

In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside. they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders. many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area? They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much? bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side? then it was the birds? did they think of those when the new estates were being built? did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built? Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work. I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they? loosehead
  • Score: 0

10:53am Wed 26 Sep 12

The Wickham Man says...

Torchie1 wrote:
Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Torchie1 wrote:
loosehead wrote:
azcaz wrote:
Sunny Saint wrote:
This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)
The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they
then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.
Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down.
so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this?
Have you seen the area that's sold for housing?
that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships
From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?
Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.
Did you explore the possibility of 'underhand behaviour' at the time, no of course you didn't. Like every election which people don't bother to vote at but are always first to complain about the result. The Dibden Bay Inquiry ran for thirteen months with plenty of publicity beforehand which allowed both objectors and supporters to make their points. Organised objectors who felt strongly enough made certain their concerns were raised but everyone was given the chance to air their views and the evidence presented showed only a tiny number of people in favour. Moaning is a British pastime and objectors to the outcome feel hard done by, but the feeling never seems to be strong enough at the time when their efforts could have affected the outcome.
Did you actually bother to read ALH's post? He addressed the points you made and you have made them again. Now go away and read it more carefully and do it again and this time show your working. 1/10.
[quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Torchie1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]azcaz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sunny Saint[/bold] wrote: This should have been done and dusted years ago! Unfortunately, the 'Great-Unwashed and their NIMBY compatriots somehow managed to convince the blinkered powers-that-be, that land re-claimed for the purpose of the docks expansion, (that would not even be there if it wasn’t friggin re-claimed) must be kept for newts and birds etc... It’s absolutely laughable and I fully understand why the big companies have taken their money & business elsewhere :-)[/p][/quote]The land was not reclaimed for the purpose of docks expansion. ABP originally put in planning for houses on the land &, when this was turned down , in a fit of pique, they then said they were going to apply for docks associated works. Incidentally, by depositing the dredged material on the Dibden Bay land they saved considerably on the cost of transporting & tipping it off the back of the Isle of Wight where it used to go. If ABP hadn't sold off so much of the docks for housing they wouldn't have a problem now.[/p][/quote]Sorry but in the beginning this was for dock expansion but when ABP didn't need it they put in to build housing but were turned down. so when they applied to use it for it's original purpose watersiders even blocked this? Have you seen the area that's sold for housing? that part of the river Itchen would never have accommodated the new cruis or container ships[/p][/quote]From the enquiry report it doesn't look as though the proposal was blocked but more a case that no-one supported it. For the thirteen months of the inquiry, all of the Dibden Bay supporters appear to have sat on their hands and done nothing. "27.2 More than 6,000 people have objected to the proposed scheme, and a petition containing more than 13,000 signatures will be submitted to the Secretary of State in due course. On the other hand there are merely 170 written representations in support of the proposed development. " Is this like the universal complaints against the government made by people who see voting as a task for others?[/p][/quote]Yes but Torchie that means nothing. There's never a massive campaign to support an individual's proposal or a company's plans for expansion. Life doesn't work that way. I bet there was no massive public campaign to support the new Tescos at Applemore though there was a noisy campaign against it at the time yet most people tacitly supported it because you can't move in there on Fridays or weekends. You just don;t get mass public support for things like the new power station or the docks expansion but try a vox pop in the street and you find a goof proportion of people positive about the jobs aspect and ar worst most people are indifferent. Re Dibden Bay I was suspicious of the enquiry and closeness of the Inspector to certain individuals in the RADBP organisation. When a rumour started that it was about to be approved the chairman of RADBP was extremely vociferous and confident that the rumours were entirely false and that in fact the opposite was true. What was the basis for his unnatural hubris? It was never explored. I'm not suggesting corruption but I am suggesting that the inspector was weak and did a poor job and even cabinet politicians have also expressed this view.[/p][/quote]Did you explore the possibility of 'underhand behaviour' at the time, no of course you didn't. Like every election which people don't bother to vote at but are always first to complain about the result. The Dibden Bay Inquiry ran for thirteen months with plenty of publicity beforehand which allowed both objectors and supporters to make their points. Organised objectors who felt strongly enough made certain their concerns were raised but everyone was given the chance to air their views and the evidence presented showed only a tiny number of people in favour. Moaning is a British pastime and objectors to the outcome feel hard done by, but the feeling never seems to be strong enough at the time when their efforts could have affected the outcome.[/p][/quote]Did you actually bother to read ALH's post? He addressed the points you made and you have made them again. Now go away and read it more carefully and do it again and this time show your working. 1/10. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

11:26am Wed 26 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?
Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside. they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders. many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area? They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much? bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side? then it was the birds? did they think of those when the new estates were being built? did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built? Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work. I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?[/p][/quote]Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind. In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'. To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight. The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance. However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently. My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format. phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

3:33pm Wed 26 Sep 12

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?
Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.
Could they move the airport there?
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside. they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders. many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area? They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much? bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side? then it was the birds? did they think of those when the new estates were being built? did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built? Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work. I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?[/p][/quote]Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind. In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'. To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight. The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance. However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently. My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.[/p][/quote]Could they move the airport there? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:44pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Cyber__Fug says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
Southy
Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool
All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!!
btw are you related to Nostradamus?
Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port.
Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.
Absolute poppycock !!! One of the longest container ships on currently in operation is the CMA CGM Christophe Columb and it DOES call into Southampton. The new Maesrk 18000 tues are only 40m longer.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: Southy Dont forget to add in the widening of the Panama canal and the new container deevelopment in Liverpool All of us in Soton are doomed as you have consistently said!!!! btw are you related to Nostradamus?[/p][/quote]Phil we would be better off as a feeder port, they are a lot more busier than a hub port. Furture Container ships are going to be a lot longer than they are now, and as it is at the moment the longest Containers ships do not come into Southampton can't get them in here.[/p][/quote]Absolute poppycock !!! One of the longest container ships on currently in operation is the CMA CGM Christophe Columb and it DOES call into Southampton. The new Maesrk 18000 tues are only 40m longer. Cyber__Fug
  • Score: 0

5:42pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Andy Locks Heath says...

" The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance"
Phil - agree and glad you picked up on this as well. I am surprised it was never challenged by ABP. The summation by the inspector was simply too equivocal. As I said in a previous post the chair of RADB (forget his name now) was far too confident of the outcome beforehand. I believe he knew more than he should or was entitled to know. Personal phone records would have been very revealing imho.
" The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance" Phil - agree and glad you picked up on this as well. I am surprised it was never challenged by ABP. The summation by the inspector was simply too equivocal. As I said in a previous post the chair of RADB (forget his name now) was far too confident of the outcome beforehand. I believe he knew more than he should or was entitled to know. Personal phone records would have been very revealing imho. Andy Locks Heath
  • Score: 0

5:57pm Wed 26 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?
Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.
Could they move the airport there?
Only if they used VTOL aircraft.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside. they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders. many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area? They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much? bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side? then it was the birds? did they think of those when the new estates were being built? did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built? Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work. I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?[/p][/quote]Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind. In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'. To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight. The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance. However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently. My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.[/p][/quote]Could they move the airport there?[/p][/quote]Only if they used VTOL aircraft. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:20pm Wed 26 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
" The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance"
Phil - agree and glad you picked up on this as well. I am surprised it was never challenged by ABP. The summation by the inspector was simply too equivocal. As I said in a previous post the chair of RADB (forget his name now) was far too confident of the outcome beforehand. I believe he knew more than he should or was entitled to know. Personal phone records would have been very revealing imho.
Andy
Interestingly someone I knew at the time reckoned he met John Prescott a year or so after the decision. They discussed Dibden Bay and Prescott apparently said it was a bad decision and permission should have been granted.
My contact then checked up on the reporting procedure and discovered Prescott's Dept was ultimately responsible for the decision making process and could have intervened.
Maybe they didn't because they expected ABP to appeal but who knows?
All adds to the intrigue.
The involvement of P&O Ports (who subsequently sold out to DP World) is an interesting one too as rumour is they were very close to some of the leading objectors
[quote][p][bold]Andy Locks Heath[/bold] wrote: " The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance" Phil - agree and glad you picked up on this as well. I am surprised it was never challenged by ABP. The summation by the inspector was simply too equivocal. As I said in a previous post the chair of RADB (forget his name now) was far too confident of the outcome beforehand. I believe he knew more than he should or was entitled to know. Personal phone records would have been very revealing imho.[/p][/quote]Andy Interestingly someone I knew at the time reckoned he met John Prescott a year or so after the decision. They discussed Dibden Bay and Prescott apparently said it was a bad decision and permission should have been granted. My contact then checked up on the reporting procedure and discovered Prescott's Dept was ultimately responsible for the decision making process and could have intervened. Maybe they didn't because they expected ABP to appeal but who knows? All adds to the intrigue. The involvement of P&O Ports (who subsequently sold out to DP World) is an interesting one too as rumour is they were very close to some of the leading objectors phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

8:07pm Wed 26 Sep 12

Fatty x Ford Worker says...

Its coming Dibden will soon rise out of that waste tip!
Its coming Dibden will soon rise out of that waste tip! Fatty x Ford Worker
  • Score: 0

11:22pm Wed 26 Sep 12

OSPREYSAINT says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?
Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.
Could they move the airport there?
Only if they used VTOL aircraft.
Or maybe bring back Aquila Airways with its flying boats.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside. they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders. many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area? They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much? bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side? then it was the birds? did they think of those when the new estates were being built? did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built? Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work. I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?[/p][/quote]Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind. In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'. To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight. The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance. However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently. My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.[/p][/quote]Could they move the airport there?[/p][/quote]Only if they used VTOL aircraft.[/p][/quote]Or maybe bring back Aquila Airways with its flying boats. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

7:04am Thu 27 Sep 12

loosehead says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside.
they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders.
many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area?
They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much?
bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side?
then it was the birds?
did they think of those when the new estates were being built?
did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built?
Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work.
I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?
Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind.
In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'.
To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight.
The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance.
However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently.
My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.
Could they move the airport there?
Only if they used VTOL aircraft.
Or maybe bring back Aquila Airways with its flying boats.
i for one have always dreamed of seeing that.
I was told stories of how we use to have planes taking off from dock gate4.
I was in the Marine Cadets for a short while & I had it pointed out to me "that's where the Sea Planes took off from" since that day I've wondered about how good it would have looked?
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: In a world of more & more people where every country is trying to attract companies to have a golden opportunity for employment & then to squash it in an act of NIMBYISM is unbelievable but that's what the loud minority did on the waterside. they didn't give a **** for the unemployed watersiders. many are retired & of the "I'm okay Jack" group or so up themselves they think a docks would lower the tone of the area? They had a power station,a waste incinerator, a army port, an american Army base(port/store) . they have a great big Oil Refinery but a Port(container) would be to much? bring to much traffic yet they would have been put on trains & moved & unloaded on the Southampton side? then it was the birds? did they think of those when the new estates were being built? did they think of them when Hythe Marina was built? Please don't cry on here when you're young can't find work. I hope this new facility brings a few more jobs to the city & not to the waterside as they don't need jobs do they?[/p][/quote]Amongst all the comments and exchanges on the Dibden Bay issue at the time, one has always stuck in my mind. In response to a comment re job opportunities, a lady Councillor from the Waterside retorted along the lines that ...'we have plenty of jobs for young people in the area and, of course, they always have opportunities working in Tourism or for the National Park'. To be fair to the lady, at the time, finding a job was not the challenge it is now, but she certainly had little foresight. The other interesting side to the story is that right up to the 11th hour those ' in the know' expected the Inspector to rule in favour of the scheme but something happened at the last minute to swing the balance. However he did say, in his summing up, that it was a very close decision and, on another day with the same set of circumstances, another person may have decided differently. My personal view is that development of Dibden would have been good for the economic prosperity of the area and probably would have negated the need for Felixstowe expansion, and development of London Gateway (and thereby hangs a tale!!) but I can't see the Dibden issue being resurrected in the forseeable future, unless in a different format.[/p][/quote]Could they move the airport there?[/p][/quote]Only if they used VTOL aircraft.[/p][/quote]Or maybe bring back Aquila Airways with its flying boats.[/p][/quote]i for one have always dreamed of seeing that. I was told stories of how we use to have planes taking off from dock gate4. I was in the Marine Cadets for a short while & I had it pointed out to me "that's where the Sea Planes took off from" since that day I've wondered about how good it would have looked? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:07am Thu 27 Sep 12

phil maccavity says...

Flying Boat base was originally at 109 berth and 102 berth was also used I think. A new facility was provided at 50 berth after the war and this was eventually used by the RNR and the marine cadets.
There is plenty of reading material if you want more detail
Flying Boat base was originally at 109 berth and 102 berth was also used I think. A new facility was provided at 50 berth after the war and this was eventually used by the RNR and the marine cadets. There is plenty of reading material if you want more detail phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Fri 28 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..
[quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured[/p][/quote]NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT.. pantsanon
  • Score: 0

9:06pm Fri 28 Sep 12

loosehead says...

pantsanon wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..
Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured[/p][/quote]NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..[/p][/quote]Exactly where did you get that Info from? I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs? loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:34am Sat 29 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

loosehead wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..
Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?
The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured[/p][/quote]NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..[/p][/quote]Exactly where did you get that Info from? I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?[/p][/quote]The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak.... pantsanon
  • Score: 0

8:55am Sat 29 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

pantsanon wrote:
loosehead wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..
Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?
The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....
DPWorld have had to cut their wage bill so they can put more money into London gateway, as we all know Southampton is only seasonal busy and no fake crane numbers per hour will change the fact that southampton is on its way to becoming a feeder port.As new customers arrive in Southampton they leave just as quick because DPWorld cannot sustain the fake teu 's per hour suggest sir you are talking out of you arse if you believe Southampton will become anything more than it is SEASONAL. That is why DPWorld employees only work 6 months of the year,( 4 on 4 off)
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured[/p][/quote]NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..[/p][/quote]Exactly where did you get that Info from? I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?[/p][/quote]The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....[/p][/quote]DPWorld have had to cut their wage bill so they can put more money into London gateway, as we all know Southampton is only seasonal busy and no fake crane numbers per hour will change the fact that southampton is on its way to becoming a feeder port.As new customers arrive in Southampton they leave just as quick because DPWorld cannot sustain the fake teu 's per hour suggest sir you are talking out of you arse if you believe Southampton will become anything more than it is SEASONAL. That is why DPWorld employees only work 6 months of the year,( 4 on 4 off) pantsanon
  • Score: 0

10:21am Sat 29 Sep 12

loosehead says...

pantsanon wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
loosehead wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
Lone Ranger. wrote:
You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured
NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..
Exactly where did you get that Info from?
I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?
The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....
DPWorld have had to cut their wage bill so they can put more money into London gateway, as we all know Southampton is only seasonal busy and no fake crane numbers per hour will change the fact that southampton is on its way to becoming a feeder port.As new customers arrive in Southampton they leave just as quick because DPWorld cannot sustain the fake teu 's per hour suggest sir you are talking out of you arse if you believe Southampton will become anything more than it is SEASONAL. That is why DPWorld employees only work 6 months of the year,( 4 on 4 off)
Well you are a bit offensive aren't you?
I've been warning about Brown's London vote catcher for years.
There was no need what so ever for London Gateway. Felixstowe,Southampt
on had more than enough spare capacity to fulfil any increase in container traffic.
Local councils ( Labour) saw it as a job creator for their area's & a vote winner for Labour & against all advice Gordon Brown allowed it to happen.
Dibden Bay is now dead but if this could have been built along with the five year wait to get permission for the new berths for the bigger container ships we might have been in a good place but now we're not.
If as you suggest DPWorld no longer need this port then the land they were letting/selling to Helius will be gone to God knows who but it won't be Port related will it?
I have commented on a TV interview with both Doug Morrison & A DPWorld manager.
what you said contradicts with what both of them have said so I asked you where you got you're information from?
It seems a bit crazy to spend that much money on building these bigger berths if Southampton is only going to be a feeder port doesn't it?
My friend was a crane driver( might still be) he worked seven days a week for four weeks then had four weeks off I think they call it continental shifts but another crane driver would do those four weeks so it's not like the port only operates 6months a year so exactly where do you get you're information from?
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lone Ranger.[/bold] wrote: You can argue back and forth for the rest of the ( and probably will ) but this is great news for Southampton with jobs being created and secured[/p][/quote]NOT SUCH GREAT NEWS AS REDUNDANCIES ARE BEING MADE IN THE DOCKS AS WE SPEAK..... lone ranger ,,,,,are jobs being created and secured I THINK NOT..[/p][/quote]Exactly where did you get that Info from? I watched the program with Doug morrison & the DP World guy on it & there was only talk of safeguarding jobs & the creation of jobs?[/p][/quote]The information is correct i know because we have friends beside themselves with worry as to whose next . redundancy's are a direct result from DPWorld .I dont care what you have watched on tv unless you work there you dont know . i suggest you think or atleast research THE TRUTH before you comment. jobs are being lost as we speak....[/p][/quote]DPWorld have had to cut their wage bill so they can put more money into London gateway, as we all know Southampton is only seasonal busy and no fake crane numbers per hour will change the fact that southampton is on its way to becoming a feeder port.As new customers arrive in Southampton they leave just as quick because DPWorld cannot sustain the fake teu 's per hour suggest sir you are talking out of you arse if you believe Southampton will become anything more than it is SEASONAL. That is why DPWorld employees only work 6 months of the year,( 4 on 4 off)[/p][/quote]Well you are a bit offensive aren't you? I've been warning about Brown's London vote catcher for years. There was no need what so ever for London Gateway. Felixstowe,Southampt on had more than enough spare capacity to fulfil any increase in container traffic. Local councils ( Labour) saw it as a job creator for their area's & a vote winner for Labour & against all advice Gordon Brown allowed it to happen. Dibden Bay is now dead but if this could have been built along with the five year wait to get permission for the new berths for the bigger container ships we might have been in a good place but now we're not. If as you suggest DPWorld no longer need this port then the land they were letting/selling to Helius will be gone to God knows who but it won't be Port related will it? I have commented on a TV interview with both Doug Morrison & A DPWorld manager. what you said contradicts with what both of them have said so I asked you where you got you're information from? It seems a bit crazy to spend that much money on building these bigger berths if Southampton is only going to be a feeder port doesn't it? My friend was a crane driver( might still be) he worked seven days a week for four weeks then had four weeks off I think they call it continental shifts but another crane driver would do those four weeks so it's not like the port only operates 6months a year so exactly where do you get you're information from? loosehead
  • Score: 0

11:56am Sat 29 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that .
Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that . pantsanon
  • Score: 0

11:56am Sat 29 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that .
Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that . pantsanon
  • Score: 0

9:22pm Sat 29 Sep 12

loosehead says...

pantsanon wrote:
Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that .
You attacked some one who was asking how you knew about job losses as it didn't say a thing in this article or on TV?
You come on here & take umbridge at a post directly aimed at the above article what you should have done was reported this article as being untrue!
Look John Denham was also on their taking credit for the extra jobs his & other MP's work had bought to this city.
Doug Morrison.DPWorld manager & Denham were saying how this would increase employment not only in the docks but in the Freight Industry & I was commenting on this so exactly why should I apologise?
Please tell us the truth?
I for one would love to see Millbrook Point restored but that would mean removing a chunk of the container Port
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: Do you directly know someone in these redundancy consultations that are going on? because if you did then you would be concerned as many are that as a direct instruction from DPWorld to lower wage bill men are being made redundant . I dont know why the echo reported new jobs for docks when clearly this situation of men being forced up the road is happening now . I am not being offensive i get angry that only part of the story is being told.You commented about secured jobs which i took umbridge too as this was not correct information. many families are at this present time worried , they have morgages and kids to think about.This situation has arose directly because of DPWorld actions . I apologise if you think im being offensive these men are hard workers and some have been for as long as 15 years . im sure the tax payer doesnt want these families on social security and claiming from the government purse.Phone DPWorld and ask them the question if you dont believe me men are being made redundant from their direct instruction to lower wage bill. also ask them if their men work 4 on 4 off i.e 6 months of the year . i wawit you apology after you have done that .[/p][/quote]You attacked some one who was asking how you knew about job losses as it didn't say a thing in this article or on TV? You come on here & take umbridge at a post directly aimed at the above article what you should have done was reported this article as being untrue! Look John Denham was also on their taking credit for the extra jobs his & other MP's work had bought to this city. Doug Morrison.DPWorld manager & Denham were saying how this would increase employment not only in the docks but in the Freight Industry & I was commenting on this so exactly why should I apologise? Please tell us the truth? I for one would love to see Millbrook Point restored but that would mean removing a chunk of the container Port loosehead
  • Score: 0

8:06pm Sun 30 Sep 12

pantsanon says...

I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of pantsanon
  • Score: 0

9:17pm Sun 30 Sep 12

loosehead says...

pantsanon wrote:
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of
So if what you say is the truth the Echo's Lying?
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of[/p][/quote]So if what you say is the truth the Echo's Lying? loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:18pm Sun 30 Sep 12

loosehead says...

pantsanon wrote:
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of
This is the heading of this article.
2,000 jobs at Southampton docks to be secured by £150m container ship plan
[quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of[/p][/quote]This is the heading of this article. 2,000 jobs at Southampton docks to be secured by £150m container ship plan loosehead
  • Score: 0

9:03pm Tue 2 Oct 12

pantsanon says...

loosehead wrote:
pantsanon wrote:
I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of
This is the heading of this article.
2,000 jobs at Southampton docks to be secured by £150m container ship plan
Yes the heading is correct but you will find that it is ABP funding the project they are also purchasing the cranes that will be in situ at berth 201.DPWorld have reduced their wage bill by 400,000 per annum resulting in redundancies. DPWorld are in the process of freeing up as much capital as they can to invest in london gateway.Not only at southampton but all DPWorld ports.Resulting in redundancies.Of the 2000 jobs saved how many are agency workers?
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pantsanon[/bold] wrote: I have told you the truth about DPWorld as i suggested phone them and ask the reasons for redundancies , their men also work 4 on 4 off. Maybe John Denham should do it ... i want the workers to keep their jobs these people going through this have worked there for 15 years and is in consultation for redundancy.. end of[/p][/quote]This is the heading of this article. 2,000 jobs at Southampton docks to be secured by £150m container ship plan[/p][/quote]Yes the heading is correct but you will find that it is ABP funding the project they are also purchasing the cranes that will be in situ at berth 201.DPWorld have reduced their wage bill by 400,000 per annum resulting in redundancies. DPWorld are in the process of freeing up as much capital as they can to invest in london gateway.Not only at southampton but all DPWorld ports.Resulting in redundancies.Of the 2000 jobs saved how many are agency workers? pantsanon
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

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