New Southampton port director Nick Ridehalgh has £100m war chest to invest in docks

Daily Echo: Nick Ridehalgh at work at Southampton docks Nick Ridehalgh at work at Southampton docks

SOUTHAMPTON’S new port director has a war chest of £100million to invest over the next five years, the Daily Echo can reveal.

Nick Ridehalgh, 47, who took up the reins less than two weeks ago replacing long-serving Doug Morrison, believes the port's value to the nation's economy will spiral by £400million in the same period to a whopping £1.4billion.

He has already set out his vision to boost trade at the port - by spending millions on a series of improvements.

New cranes, multi-storey car parks, a new port entrance and even a potential new cruise terminal are in the pipeline at the docks.

But one of his key tasks is to secure the Marchwood Military Port, in a bid to dramatically increase Associated British Ports' car handling capabilities - and create 400 jobs.

The Government has revealed it will launch a “formal sale process” of the 330-acre facility, possibly as early as March.

Speaking exclusively to the Daily Echo at his new office in Southampton, Mr Ridehalgh said: "The sale of Marchwood Military Port can ensure the Port of Southampton's role as a vital international gateway for Britain's businesses and exporters.

“ABP Southampton currently supports 15,000 jobs and contributes £1bn to the economy every year.”

The proposal has already sparked controversy with some locals fearing any increase in HGV movements will create noise and traffic problems in their community.

But Mr Ridehalgh said he was keen to engage with those who had concerns.

“We are keen to speak to local people and work with them to address any concerns they may have as we develop our plans,” he said.

“ABP is committed to supporting the area and we will do all we can to deliver the right outcome for local people."

Securing the port is one of Mr Ridelagh's main objectives as he settles in to life in Southampton, having arrived from a role on ABP's board looking after the Short Sea Ports business.

But he will also be looking to consolidate on the city's standing as the “jewel in the crown” of the company's vast empire.

He said of his new role: “It is very exciting. I was here 20 years ago for a short period of time so I am well aware of the scale of the operation and the importance of the port of Southampton not just to the region but also to the UK.

“It's a piece of infrastructure of national importance so to be given the opportunity of looking after it and trying to develop it is very exciting.

“This is absolutely a step up. Southampton is considered the jewel in ABP's crown.

“In terms of scale it's a big step up - nevertheless the business I was running before was very complex because of the whole range of activities that we undertook within the Short Sea Ports business.

“I think the brief is obviously to maintain Southampton's position within the markets in which we lead. Specifically cruise and cars have seen good growth and we want to continue to develop those markets.”

But although millions has been spent improving facilities, finding new space is seen as crucial to the firm's future.

The new director's predecessor, Doug Morrison, was vocal on his assertion that one day the port would expand in to Dibden Bay.

The controversial idea was dismissed following a major public enquiry a decade ago.

Mr Ridelagh, a police constable before he became involved in ports, believes securing Marchwood could delay the need to explore this option for “certainly a decade”.

“The limited availability of land is a real issue for us and whilst we need to continue to be creative to make best and optimal use of existing facilities, we are interested in Marchwood.

“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. It is in its scale similar to the existing port facility. I think one day it will potentially be available as an option for port use.

“What I think is true to say is that if ABP were successful with regards to Marchwood, the requirement for Dibden Bay would be deferred for a substantial period of time.”

In the meantime, the new man in charge says investments of up to £100million are possible over the next five years as he looks to take the docks in to a new era.

He added: “We now have the most efficient container port in Europe and the second largest in UK.

“We continue to develop that and invest so as to ensure there's a good long term future with the ability to accommodate the world's largest container ships.

“The real focus is to actually first and foremost maintain our lead and invest and look to develop our position even further.”

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:05pm Sun 26 Jan 14

loosehead says...

so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve? loosehead
  • Score: 0

1:13pm Sun 26 Jan 14

superchef says...

"But one of his key tasks is to secure the Marchwood Military Port, in a bid to dramatically increase Associated British Ports' car handling capabilities - and create 400 jobs"

So how do they intend to transport the Cars to and from Marchwood? That's apart from using Ships! Some folk already put a stop to the railway. That just leaves the roads which already are over used. I just hope they don't use Car transporters as they already use them to come and go from the Industrial estate! But I guess like always there will be back handers and the port will win in its task :( When will Marchwood council, learn to say "No more" They wont because they are set in their ways and once again us locals have to suffer.
Rant Over, .
"But one of his key tasks is to secure the Marchwood Military Port, in a bid to dramatically increase Associated British Ports' car handling capabilities - and create 400 jobs" So how do they intend to transport the Cars to and from Marchwood? That's apart from using Ships! Some folk already put a stop to the railway. That just leaves the roads which already are over used. I just hope they don't use Car transporters as they already use them to come and go from the Industrial estate! But I guess like always there will be back handers and the port will win in its task :( When will Marchwood council, learn to say "No more" They wont because they are set in their ways and once again us locals have to suffer. Rant Over, . superchef
  • Score: -2

1:28pm Sun 26 Jan 14

cincense says...

There is already a rail connection to Marchwood port. Lets just hope they do the correct thing and create proper jobs with proper T&C's not just casual zero hours contracts.
There is already a rail connection to Marchwood port. Lets just hope they do the correct thing and create proper jobs with proper T&C's not just casual zero hours contracts. cincense
  • Score: 4

2:01pm Sun 26 Jan 14

southy says...

loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port southy
  • Score: -13

2:06pm Sun 26 Jan 14

southy says...

superchef wrote:
"But one of his key tasks is to secure the Marchwood Military Port, in a bid to dramatically increase Associated British Ports' car handling capabilities - and create 400 jobs"

So how do they intend to transport the Cars to and from Marchwood? That's apart from using Ships! Some folk already put a stop to the railway. That just leaves the roads which already are over used. I just hope they don't use Car transporters as they already use them to come and go from the Industrial estate! But I guess like always there will be back handers and the port will win in its task :( When will Marchwood council, learn to say "No more" They wont because they are set in their ways and once again us locals have to suffer.
Rant Over, .
When ask about the creating 400 jobs ABPj refused to answer, thats because any jobs that are created will be those in construction short term contract jobs. port jobs will be base on if and when needed and will be pick up from the stevedores company,s
[quote][p][bold]superchef[/bold] wrote: "But one of his key tasks is to secure the Marchwood Military Port, in a bid to dramatically increase Associated British Ports' car handling capabilities - and create 400 jobs" So how do they intend to transport the Cars to and from Marchwood? That's apart from using Ships! Some folk already put a stop to the railway. That just leaves the roads which already are over used. I just hope they don't use Car transporters as they already use them to come and go from the Industrial estate! But I guess like always there will be back handers and the port will win in its task :( When will Marchwood council, learn to say "No more" They wont because they are set in their ways and once again us locals have to suffer. Rant Over, .[/p][/quote]When ask about the creating 400 jobs ABPj refused to answer, thats because any jobs that are created will be those in construction short term contract jobs. port jobs will be base on if and when needed and will be pick up from the stevedores company,s southy
  • Score: -9

2:41pm Sun 26 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
Southy
Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay?
I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]Southy Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay? I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense. phil maccavity
  • Score: 9

2:53pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Shoong says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
Southy
Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay?
I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.
Yes, I would also like to to see these T's and C's myself.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]Southy Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay? I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.[/p][/quote]Yes, I would also like to to see these T's and C's myself. Shoong
  • Score: 7

3:14pm Sun 26 Jan 14

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
Southy
Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay?
I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.
you pointed the way Phil a few years back
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]Southy Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay? I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.[/p][/quote]you pointed the way Phil a few years back southy
  • Score: -8

3:18pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Shoong says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
Southy
Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay?
I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.
you pointed the way Phil a few years back
Can we view it online?

Come on, you are good at posting links.

Or are you saving them for 'debates'?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]Southy Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay? I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.[/p][/quote]you pointed the way Phil a few years back[/p][/quote]Can we view it online? Come on, you are good at posting links. Or are you saving them for 'debates'? Shoong
  • Score: 10

5:49pm Sun 26 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
Southy
Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay?
I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.
you pointed the way Phil a few years back
Southy
Really?
Can't remember this at all but no doubt you can refresh my memory.
If not can you advise us all where you found this information
Surely if the 'Terms & Conditions' for development at Dibden Bay did not permit use as the land as a port, there was no need for an enquiry.
ABP's plan would have fallen at the first hurdle.
I am sure this is too simplistic an answer so wait for your interesting response
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]Southy Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay? I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.[/p][/quote]you pointed the way Phil a few years back[/p][/quote]Southy Really? Can't remember this at all but no doubt you can refresh my memory. If not can you advise us all where you found this information Surely if the 'Terms & Conditions' for development at Dibden Bay did not permit use as the land as a port, there was no need for an enquiry. ABP's plan would have fallen at the first hurdle. I am sure this is too simplistic an answer so wait for your interesting response phil maccavity
  • Score: 5

6:34pm Sun 26 Jan 14

elvisimo says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
Southy
Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay?
I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.
you pointed the way Phil a few years back
Can you tell me , who killed JFK ?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]Southy Where did you read the Terms & Conditions for Dibden Bay? I am sure if all parties had known this 'Southy fact' at the time of the Dibden enquiry it would have saved all parties a hell of a lot of time, effort and expense.[/p][/quote]you pointed the way Phil a few years back[/p][/quote]Can you tell me , who killed JFK ? elvisimo
  • Score: 3

9:03pm Sun 26 Jan 14

loosehead says...

southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)? loosehead
  • Score: 4

10:33pm Sun 26 Jan 14

Eric_Cartman says...

loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?
Thanks to Prescott, UK flagged ships don't need to have ANY British people in them at all, crew or officers. His tonnage tax thing has lead to the UK being a FOC.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?[/p][/quote]Thanks to Prescott, UK flagged ships don't need to have ANY British people in them at all, crew or officers. His tonnage tax thing has lead to the UK being a FOC. Eric_Cartman
  • Score: 1

10:53pm Sun 26 Jan 14

in search of the truth says...

This £100m must be the profit that ABP hasn't had to pay corporation tax on.
This £100m must be the profit that ABP hasn't had to pay corporation tax on. in search of the truth
  • Score: -1

10:58pm Sun 26 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

Eric_Cartman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?
Thanks to Prescott, UK flagged ships don't need to have ANY British people in them at all, crew or officers. His tonnage tax thing has lead to the UK being a FOC.
Off topic but according to the UK Chamber of Shipping, Tonnage tax has done wonders for the UK Shipping Industry
btw I am no fan of John Prescott just trying to provide a balanced view
[quote][p][bold]Eric_Cartman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?[/p][/quote]Thanks to Prescott, UK flagged ships don't need to have ANY British people in them at all, crew or officers. His tonnage tax thing has lead to the UK being a FOC.[/p][/quote]Off topic but according to the UK Chamber of Shipping, Tonnage tax has done wonders for the UK Shipping Industry btw I am no fan of John Prescott just trying to provide a balanced view phil maccavity
  • Score: 1

11:09pm Sun 26 Jan 14

phil maccavity says...

in search of the truth wrote:
This £100m must be the profit that ABP hasn't had to pay corporation tax on.
It must be endemic
Presume you are aware what the Public Accounts Committee had to say about Peel Holdings 'Tax Dodging' back in June last year
Good to see you remain interested in affairs in this neck of the woods
[quote][p][bold]in search of the truth[/bold] wrote: This £100m must be the profit that ABP hasn't had to pay corporation tax on.[/p][/quote]It must be endemic Presume you are aware what the Public Accounts Committee had to say about Peel Holdings 'Tax Dodging' back in June last year Good to see you remain interested in affairs in this neck of the woods phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

5:15am Mon 27 Jan 14

Bob Barnes says...

Do you people realy realy care what happens, all I can see is a lot of comments that do not take in to account the well being & expansion of the port, which all said & done Southampton will in the long term will benifit from the port, stop beating yourselves up over something which is important for the City, go & do something usefull like vacume the carpet or clean your windows
Do you people realy realy care what happens, all I can see is a lot of comments that do not take in to account the well being & expansion of the port, which all said & done Southampton will in the long term will benifit from the port, stop beating yourselves up over something which is important for the City, go & do something usefull like vacume the carpet or clean your windows Bob Barnes
  • Score: 0

7:11am Mon 27 Jan 14

loosehead says...

Bob Barnes wrote:
Do you people realy realy care what happens, all I can see is a lot of comments that do not take in to account the well being & expansion of the port, which all said & done Southampton will in the long term will benifit from the port, stop beating yourselves up over something which is important for the City, go & do something usefull like vacume the carpet or clean your windows
i have been advocating this port expansion
[quote][p][bold]Bob Barnes[/bold] wrote: Do you people realy realy care what happens, all I can see is a lot of comments that do not take in to account the well being & expansion of the port, which all said & done Southampton will in the long term will benifit from the port, stop beating yourselves up over something which is important for the City, go & do something usefull like vacume the carpet or clean your windows[/p][/quote]i have been advocating this port expansion loosehead
  • Score: -2

8:42am Mon 27 Jan 14

Eric_Cartman says...

phil maccavity wrote:
Eric_Cartman wrote:
loosehead wrote:
southy wrote:
loosehead wrote:
so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said?
reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?
If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port
southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?
Thanks to Prescott, UK flagged ships don't need to have ANY British people in them at all, crew or officers. His tonnage tax thing has lead to the UK being a FOC.
Off topic but according to the UK Chamber of Shipping, Tonnage tax has done wonders for the UK Shipping Industry
btw I am no fan of John Prescott just trying to provide a balanced view
Uk is a Flag of Convenience. Ships only using our flag for financial reasons, not for any other.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Eric_Cartman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: so I was right then!“Dibden Bay is a land area which was reclaimed for port use. read this Linesman can you understand what has just been said? reclaimed for dock land? nothing about reclaimed for a nature reserve?[/p][/quote]If you read the terms and conditions of the reclaim land it say;s Port related use only, not to be use as a port[/p][/quote]southy who was in charge of the seamans union & who allowed British Registered ships to be fully crewed by Foreign workers(not officers)?[/p][/quote]Thanks to Prescott, UK flagged ships don't need to have ANY British people in them at all, crew or officers. His tonnage tax thing has lead to the UK being a FOC.[/p][/quote]Off topic but according to the UK Chamber of Shipping, Tonnage tax has done wonders for the UK Shipping Industry btw I am no fan of John Prescott just trying to provide a balanced view[/p][/quote]Uk is a Flag of Convenience. Ships only using our flag for financial reasons, not for any other. Eric_Cartman
  • Score: 1

4:27pm Mon 27 Jan 14

fishman mart says...

Does this not sound like a betrayal of almost biblical proportions ? ? Encouraging a large development on the edge of a national park and a nature reserve , a unique marine area with secondary tidal flow. Jobs ? Yes - for now. Enviroment ? For ever for our children , grand children etc., there is a much bigger picture here . Do not sell our birthrite for the sake of footpath / cycle route
Does this not sound like a betrayal of almost biblical proportions ? ? Encouraging a large development on the edge of a national park and a nature reserve , a unique marine area with secondary tidal flow. Jobs ? Yes - for now. Enviroment ? For ever for our children , grand children etc., there is a much bigger picture here . Do not sell our birthrite for the sake of footpath / cycle route fishman mart
  • Score: 2

6:07pm Mon 27 Jan 14

loosehead says...

fishman mart wrote:
Does this not sound like a betrayal of almost biblical proportions ? ? Encouraging a large development on the edge of a national park and a nature reserve , a unique marine area with secondary tidal flow. Jobs ? Yes - for now. Enviroment ? For ever for our children , grand children etc., there is a much bigger picture here . Do not sell our birthrite for the sake of footpath / cycle route
are you talking about MARCHWOOD MILILITARY PORT?
or the reclaimed land that use to be a bay so no cycling on the bay would have happened would it?
[quote][p][bold]fishman mart[/bold] wrote: Does this not sound like a betrayal of almost biblical proportions ? ? Encouraging a large development on the edge of a national park and a nature reserve , a unique marine area with secondary tidal flow. Jobs ? Yes - for now. Enviroment ? For ever for our children , grand children etc., there is a much bigger picture here . Do not sell our birthrite for the sake of footpath / cycle route[/p][/quote]are you talking about MARCHWOOD MILILITARY PORT? or the reclaimed land that use to be a bay so no cycling on the bay would have happened would it? loosehead
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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