Signing marks milestone in £450m Royal Pier development

An artist's impression of the proposed development of Royal Pier.

An artist's impression of the proposed development of Royal Pier.

First published in News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Political reporter

SOUTHAMPTON’S long-awaited Royal Pier development has passed another important milestone.

The signing of a development agreement between landowners and the developer means the £450m plans have moved another step closer to reality.

As previously reported, the scheme is the latest in a series of plans for the disused site which have been put forward over the past decades.

The current plans, drawn up by RPW (Southampton) Ltd feature a super-casino, luxury hotel, restaurants and bars, flats and an extended Mayflower Park.

And as well as creating almost 7,000 jobs, both the developer and Southampton City Council say it will create one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations.

RPW (Southampton) is a joint venture company owned by Morgan Sindall Investments Ltd (MSIL) and financiers Lucent Group.

The owners of the Royal Pier site, the city council, Associated British Ports (ABP) and the Crown Estate, have now put pen to paper on the conditional development agreement formally handing over responsibility to carry out the plans to RPW(Southampton).

Public consultation is set to be carried out later this year, while a planning application for the development will be prepared.

Labour council leader Simon Letts said: “We are very excited by these proposals.

“The Royal Pier waterfront development is the flagship project in our overall plan to further enhance our city’s reputation as a first-class destination to live, work and visit.”

And ABP port director Nick Ridehalgh said: "We understand how important the Royal Pier site is to the future development of the city’s waterfront. Given this, we welcome the completion of the development agreement.”

More on the Royal Pier development

Comments (46)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:55am Wed 5 Mar 14

townieboy says...

think ill put me name down on one of the flats.
think ill put me name down on one of the flats. townieboy
  • Score: -4

11:07am Wed 5 Mar 14

J.P.M... says...

This is an excellent opportunity for some full on moaning
This is an excellent opportunity for some full on moaning J.P.M...
  • Score: 14

11:12am Wed 5 Mar 14

Micle1974 says...

It sounds like a very exciting development, but like so much that is promised for Southampton......I bet its more white elephant / pie in the sky etc etc etc...

If this does go ahead and provide us with "one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations" as well as 7,000 jobs then I will eat my hat

PS I hope it happens ;)
It sounds like a very exciting development, but like so much that is promised for Southampton......I bet its more white elephant / pie in the sky etc etc etc... If this does go ahead and provide us with "one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations" as well as 7,000 jobs then I will eat my hat PS I hope it happens ;) Micle1974
  • Score: 4

11:17am Wed 5 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images).

This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.
Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images). This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats. sotonboy84
  • Score: 11

11:54am Wed 5 Mar 14

southy says...

This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people.
Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are.
The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls
This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people. Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are. The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls southy
  • Score: -9

11:59am Wed 5 Mar 14

allsaintsnocurves says...

And as well as creating almost 7,000 jobs, both the developer and Southampton City Council say it will create one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations....HOW EXACTLY???

super-casino, luxury hotel, restaurants and bars...is that how??

Well I for one was hoping that we would have had an Iconic structure at the end of this pier that was high and prominent from the water and land for all to see on cruises as they come in to the city. The Tall building could have been a hotel and have a restaurant at the top with a viewing gallery there. It could have been designed so it could have fireworks set off from the top or lit up in different colours. Anything but something different to what we already had in the City and something that the city could be proud of.

I was also hoping that maybe the main parts of the city could be linked together by a monorail system that would seriously reduce traffic for the generations to come. It could go right into the new Station. This too would also provide an attraction to the city that would bring in the serious investment it needs.

Who is seriously designing this because it was meant to be done by the people behind the Sydney Harbour?? I don't think so.
And as well as creating almost 7,000 jobs, both the developer and Southampton City Council say it will create one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations....HOW EXACTLY??? super-casino, luxury hotel, restaurants and bars...is that how?? Well I for one was hoping that we would have had an Iconic structure at the end of this pier that was high and prominent from the water and land for all to see on cruises as they come in to the city. The Tall building could have been a hotel and have a restaurant at the top with a viewing gallery there. It could have been designed so it could have fireworks set off from the top or lit up in different colours. Anything but something different to what we already had in the City and something that the city could be proud of. I was also hoping that maybe the main parts of the city could be linked together by a monorail system that would seriously reduce traffic for the generations to come. It could go right into the new Station. This too would also provide an attraction to the city that would bring in the serious investment it needs. Who is seriously designing this because it was meant to be done by the people behind the Sydney Harbour?? I don't think so. allsaintsnocurves
  • Score: 15

12:05pm Wed 5 Mar 14

southy says...

There is also some legal matters to who really owns the Old Ticket Office as this was built on Mayflower park originally and fence off later date.
Its some thing that will need to be look into very deeply.
There is also some legal matters to who really owns the Old Ticket Office as this was built on Mayflower park originally and fence off later date. Its some thing that will need to be look into very deeply. southy
  • Score: -13

12:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
And as well as creating almost 7,000 jobs, both the developer and Southampton City Council say it will create one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations....HOW EXACTLY???

super-casino, luxury hotel, restaurants and bars...is that how??

Well I for one was hoping that we would have had an Iconic structure at the end of this pier that was high and prominent from the water and land for all to see on cruises as they come in to the city. The Tall building could have been a hotel and have a restaurant at the top with a viewing gallery there. It could have been designed so it could have fireworks set off from the top or lit up in different colours. Anything but something different to what we already had in the City and something that the city could be proud of.

I was also hoping that maybe the main parts of the city could be linked together by a monorail system that would seriously reduce traffic for the generations to come. It could go right into the new Station. This too would also provide an attraction to the city that would bring in the serious investment it needs.

Who is seriously designing this because it was meant to be done by the people behind the Sydney Harbour?? I don't think so.
At least it's an improvement on what's there but I agree, it's not at all exciting. Exciting for the developers shareholders and the Council Tax/Business Rates department. As you say it should contain some sort of landmark building, different to other areas which will attract people in. The Spinaker tower had issues with delays but when opened it was different and attracted people from all over. Who's going to visit Southampton waterfront to have a drink in a pub underneath 15 storey flats? I wouldn't bother and it would involve a walk into town for me!

It's just more of what city planners seem only capable of allowing – shops, retaurants and flats. There's the new addition to Westquay to look forward to which will contain more of the same!

It's just the result of incompetent councils who have no back bone and allow the developers to call the shots as to what they want as councillors are scared of losing the investment. I contacted Councillor Noon about this development and raised my concerns about losing the view to the waterfront from the old town, amongst other concerns. His exact response was "you have to realise that the council work hard to bring investment into the city" which says it all, attracting investment is more important than the city's history and culture, all of which is the only thing in the city to make us unique. The council can and should have more say about what will be of benefit to the city and its inhabitants which should come first before the current priority of developers profits and council coffers.
[quote][p][bold]allsaintsnocurves[/bold] wrote: And as well as creating almost 7,000 jobs, both the developer and Southampton City Council say it will create one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations....HOW EXACTLY??? super-casino, luxury hotel, restaurants and bars...is that how?? Well I for one was hoping that we would have had an Iconic structure at the end of this pier that was high and prominent from the water and land for all to see on cruises as they come in to the city. The Tall building could have been a hotel and have a restaurant at the top with a viewing gallery there. It could have been designed so it could have fireworks set off from the top or lit up in different colours. Anything but something different to what we already had in the City and something that the city could be proud of. I was also hoping that maybe the main parts of the city could be linked together by a monorail system that would seriously reduce traffic for the generations to come. It could go right into the new Station. This too would also provide an attraction to the city that would bring in the serious investment it needs. Who is seriously designing this because it was meant to be done by the people behind the Sydney Harbour?? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]At least it's an improvement on what's there but I agree, it's not at all exciting. Exciting for the developers shareholders and the Council Tax/Business Rates department. As you say it should contain some sort of landmark building, different to other areas which will attract people in. The Spinaker tower had issues with delays but when opened it was different and attracted people from all over. Who's going to visit Southampton waterfront to have a drink in a pub underneath 15 storey flats? I wouldn't bother and it would involve a walk into town for me! It's just more of what city planners seem only capable of allowing – shops, retaurants and flats. There's the new addition to Westquay to look forward to which will contain more of the same! It's just the result of incompetent councils who have no back bone and allow the developers to call the shots as to what they want as councillors are scared of losing the investment. I contacted Councillor Noon about this development and raised my concerns about losing the view to the waterfront from the old town, amongst other concerns. His exact response was "you have to realise that the council work hard to bring investment into the city" which says it all, attracting investment is more important than the city's history and culture, all of which is the only thing in the city to make us unique. The council can and should have more say about what will be of benefit to the city and its inhabitants which should come first before the current priority of developers profits and council coffers. sotonboy84
  • Score: 9

12:48pm Wed 5 Mar 14

southy says...

sotonboy84 and others there we be a petition set up soon concerning the Mayflower Park to address the council in the chamber, just waiting on a little bit more info before setting this up, The Council can not do what it wants to do not with out the people say so over Mayflower Park. Pass Council have all ready broken 1 rule over the park and this will need to be address also.
sotonboy84 and others there we be a petition set up soon concerning the Mayflower Park to address the council in the chamber, just waiting on a little bit more info before setting this up, The Council can not do what it wants to do not with out the people say so over Mayflower Park. Pass Council have all ready broken 1 rule over the park and this will need to be address also. southy
  • Score: -9

12:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

southy wrote:
sotonboy84 and others there we be a petition set up soon concerning the Mayflower Park to address the council in the chamber, just waiting on a little bit more info before setting this up, The Council can not do what it wants to do not with out the people say so over Mayflower Park. Pass Council have all ready broken 1 rule over the park and this will need to be address also.
I'll sign!
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: sotonboy84 and others there we be a petition set up soon concerning the Mayflower Park to address the council in the chamber, just waiting on a little bit more info before setting this up, The Council can not do what it wants to do not with out the people say so over Mayflower Park. Pass Council have all ready broken 1 rule over the park and this will need to be address also.[/p][/quote]I'll sign! sotonboy84
  • Score: 3

12:57pm Wed 5 Mar 14

southy says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
southy wrote:
sotonboy84 and others there we be a petition set up soon concerning the Mayflower Park to address the council in the chamber, just waiting on a little bit more info before setting this up, The Council can not do what it wants to do not with out the people say so over Mayflower Park. Pass Council have all ready broken 1 rule over the park and this will need to be address also.
I'll sign!
Ok I let it be known and where at what time where it can be signed
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: sotonboy84 and others there we be a petition set up soon concerning the Mayflower Park to address the council in the chamber, just waiting on a little bit more info before setting this up, The Council can not do what it wants to do not with out the people say so over Mayflower Park. Pass Council have all ready broken 1 rule over the park and this will need to be address also.[/p][/quote]I'll sign![/p][/quote]Ok I let it be known and where at what time where it can be signed southy
  • Score: -6

1:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Jonny7oma says...

Why has everything got to be 'luxury' or quoted in monopoly money? Or schemes submitted of such pretentious grandeur? Why can't we have what was there before, rebuilt but using modern materials and a fresh look? No amount of reclaimed land can beat the excitement of simply walking out across the water on a structure. I remember as a child dripping my ice cream onto the wooden planks as I bent over, marveling at how I could see the water beneath me. Oh yes, it's because there's nothing in it for anyone except the simple pleasure of the people of Southampton. Some one said here comes an excuse for some full on moaning ... **** right when it comes to making my city something it's not.
Why has everything got to be 'luxury' or quoted in monopoly money? Or schemes submitted of such pretentious grandeur? Why can't we have what was there before, rebuilt but using modern materials and a fresh look? No amount of reclaimed land can beat the excitement of simply walking out across the water on a structure. I remember as a child dripping my ice cream onto the wooden planks as I bent over, marveling at how I could see the water beneath me. Oh yes, it's because there's nothing in it for anyone except the simple pleasure of the people of Southampton. Some one said here comes an excuse for some full on moaning ... **** right when it comes to making my city something it's not. Jonny7oma
  • Score: 11

1:33pm Wed 5 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people.
Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are.
The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls
Southy
As usual you post unsubstantiated twaddle.
if you took the time and effort to research this matter you will find that the original arrangements for the purchase of Millbrook Bay by the Southern Railway Company in 1926, from the Barker Mill Estate, excluded the area east from Four Posts Creek (and including Portland Creek) to the old Town Walls (ie approx. 20/25% of the Millbrook Bay marshland area.
This eastern marshland area known at the time as West Quay -as it is today -, was purchased by the then Southampton Borough Council on 10th day of February 1928 and was subject to a conveyance between His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, the Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton and the Southern Railway.
In a nutshell then, the Southampton Council own all the land from around the Central Station down to Mayflower Park ie all the area outside the Western Docks.
The Port owns what is left of Royal Pier, including the old Gatehouse, which is now Kutis restaurant.
The Port also owns Town Quay and the Red Funnel site.
As for your claim that the Council will be forced to seek a referendum about the future of Mayflower Park, I think you should rely on proper research rather than imagination.
You might start with a publically available Council document dated 16 October 2012 which covers the subject of Royal Pier Waterfront.
The Council actually has the power to dispose of Mayflower Park under S122 and S123 of the Local Government Act 1972.
However the Council would require to obtain consent from the Secretary of State who would then have to consider the provisions of the Hampshire Act 1983 and the Soton International Boat Show Act of 1997.
However the Council have decided not to dispose of Mayflower Park but have said they will work with ABP and the Crown Estate to increase the footprint of the Park from approx. 10.5 acres to 13.5 acres as part of the development brief.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people. Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are. The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls[/p][/quote]Southy As usual you post unsubstantiated twaddle. if you took the time and effort to research this matter you will find that the original arrangements for the purchase of Millbrook Bay by the Southern Railway Company in 1926, from the Barker Mill Estate, excluded the area east from Four Posts Creek (and including Portland Creek) to the old Town Walls (ie approx. 20/25% of the Millbrook Bay marshland area. This eastern marshland area known at the time as West Quay -as it is today -, was purchased by the then Southampton Borough Council on 10th day of February 1928 and was subject to a conveyance between His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, the Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton and the Southern Railway. In a nutshell then, the Southampton Council own all the land from around the Central Station down to Mayflower Park ie all the area outside the Western Docks. The Port owns what is left of Royal Pier, including the old Gatehouse, which is now Kutis restaurant. The Port also owns Town Quay and the Red Funnel site. As for your claim that the Council will be forced to seek a referendum about the future of Mayflower Park, I think you should rely on proper research rather than imagination. You might start with a publically available Council document dated 16 October 2012 which covers the subject of Royal Pier Waterfront. The Council actually has the power to dispose of Mayflower Park under S122 and S123 of the Local Government Act 1972. However the Council would require to obtain consent from the Secretary of State who would then have to consider the provisions of the Hampshire Act 1983 and the Soton International Boat Show Act of 1997. However the Council have decided not to dispose of Mayflower Park but have said they will work with ABP and the Crown Estate to increase the footprint of the Park from approx. 10.5 acres to 13.5 acres as part of the development brief. phil maccavity
  • Score: 14

1:53pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Outside of the Box says...

southy wrote:
This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people.
Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are.
The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls
Well that's it then the font of all knowledge has spoken, the good people of Southampton entrusted council to Govern the City when they elected the Councillors.

A citywide public consultation will be a waste of money, consult where you need to (in the locality) but other than that just get on and build it, the sooner the better.
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people. Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are. The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls[/p][/quote]Well that's it then the font of all knowledge has spoken, the good people of Southampton entrusted council to Govern the City when they elected the Councillors. A citywide public consultation will be a waste of money, consult where you need to (in the locality) but other than that just get on and build it, the sooner the better. Outside of the Box
  • Score: 6

1:56pm Wed 5 Mar 14

PrinceMawwaw says...

Very interesting comments from all concerned.

I expect I am like a lot of local residents when it comes to these big developments: disappointed that we're not getting something breathtaking (or even interesting) but resigned to the fact that the Council will sell its own grandmother for a few flats and shops.

I'd be interested to hear from a Councillor or council worker how they would like Southampton citizens to contribute to these developments (assuming we have a voice!). Along with others I share the concern that Mayflower Park will be cut off from the old walls by a line of new buildings. It's bad enough to have the road there, but maybe it's a necessary evil. To cut off the view of the waterfront would be scandalous.

So what's the other point of view? Sotonboy84 quotes a councillor saying "you have to realise that the council work hard to bring investment into the city". So is that what they are there for? Can they be honest and tell us the rules of the game? Perhaps they are:

- our priority is to raise tax revenue through new business and residents
- we do not develop anything ourselves (ice rinks, new parks, landmark buildings, festivals) but we are happy to listen to solid proposals from third parties
- if you as a citizen wish to contribute, you should contact your local councillor who will give you a reasonable response in plain English - not in council-speak

... something like that. Just don't pretend that every single development is the greatest in the world, as if your electorate are a bunch of yokels that have never been anywhere else and seen how it should be done.

You never know Southampton, the interested citizens of this city might even be your greatest asset - not a bunch of grumblers you have to talk down to every chance you get.
Very interesting comments from all concerned. I expect I am like a lot of local residents when it comes to these big developments: disappointed that we're not getting something breathtaking (or even interesting) but resigned to the fact that the Council will sell its own grandmother for a few flats and shops. I'd be interested to hear from a Councillor or council worker how they would like Southampton citizens to contribute to these developments (assuming we have a voice!). Along with others I share the concern that Mayflower Park will be cut off from the old walls by a line of new buildings. It's bad enough to have the road there, but maybe it's a necessary evil. To cut off the view of the waterfront would be scandalous. So what's the other point of view? Sotonboy84 quotes a councillor saying "you have to realise that the council work hard to bring investment into the city". So is that what they are there for? Can they be honest and tell us the rules of the game? Perhaps they are: - our priority is to raise tax revenue through new business and residents - we do not develop anything ourselves (ice rinks, new parks, landmark buildings, festivals) but we are happy to listen to solid proposals from third parties - if you as a citizen wish to contribute, you should contact your local councillor who will give you a reasonable response in plain English - not in council-speak ... something like that. Just don't pretend that every single development is the greatest in the world, as if your electorate are a bunch of yokels that have never been anywhere else and seen how it should be done. You never know Southampton, the interested citizens of this city might even be your greatest asset - not a bunch of grumblers you have to talk down to every chance you get. PrinceMawwaw
  • Score: 6

1:57pm Wed 5 Mar 14

southy says...

phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people.
Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are.
The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls
Southy
As usual you post unsubstantiated twaddle.
if you took the time and effort to research this matter you will find that the original arrangements for the purchase of Millbrook Bay by the Southern Railway Company in 1926, from the Barker Mill Estate, excluded the area east from Four Posts Creek (and including Portland Creek) to the old Town Walls (ie approx. 20/25% of the Millbrook Bay marshland area.
This eastern marshland area known at the time as West Quay -as it is today -, was purchased by the then Southampton Borough Council on 10th day of February 1928 and was subject to a conveyance between His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, the Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton and the Southern Railway.
In a nutshell then, the Southampton Council own all the land from around the Central Station down to Mayflower Park ie all the area outside the Western Docks.
The Port owns what is left of Royal Pier, including the old Gatehouse, which is now Kutis restaurant.
The Port also owns Town Quay and the Red Funnel site.
As for your claim that the Council will be forced to seek a referendum about the future of Mayflower Park, I think you should rely on proper research rather than imagination.
You might start with a publically available Council document dated 16 October 2012 which covers the subject of Royal Pier Waterfront.
The Council actually has the power to dispose of Mayflower Park under S122 and S123 of the Local Government Act 1972.
However the Council would require to obtain consent from the Secretary of State who would then have to consider the provisions of the Hampshire Act 1983 and the Soton International Boat Show Act of 1997.
However the Council have decided not to dispose of Mayflower Park but have said they will work with ABP and the Crown Estate to increase the footprint of the Park from approx. 10.5 acres to 13.5 acres as part of the development brief.
Oh is that why the railway had to pay out large amount of £ to Barker and Mills, because of the error the railway made in thinking that they owned to land and it was not till after they found out they did not own the foreshore, and I only gave it as an example, The city council can not do what it likes over Mayflower Park they are limited, the council are just caretakers to the park The old ticket gatehouse was built after the park was formed and built on park land, the gates to the park was moved to where they are now, the old pillars that is next to the road is the old location of the gates, the Gate house is an island of land and the pier that extended from it was clear of the ground the park land went round the gatehouse to the side of it where there use to be a set of gates to the side of the gate house, and like i said there got to be a lot deeper research into the matter as ABP;J are only 1 of a few people that as run the gatehouse and pier, as for ownership of the pier that is now in the hands of the master of wrecks and ABP;j as lost ownership of the pier. its like what happen over Cracknore Harbour ABP owned the old pier there untill they lost ownership by not maintaining it, the Local council are now the owners as they was the ones to rebuild the concrete pier along side the slipway.
The moment any land connects to any part of the Park it will become part of the park and will carry the same rules and that means no buildings.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people. Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are. The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls[/p][/quote]Southy As usual you post unsubstantiated twaddle. if you took the time and effort to research this matter you will find that the original arrangements for the purchase of Millbrook Bay by the Southern Railway Company in 1926, from the Barker Mill Estate, excluded the area east from Four Posts Creek (and including Portland Creek) to the old Town Walls (ie approx. 20/25% of the Millbrook Bay marshland area. This eastern marshland area known at the time as West Quay -as it is today -, was purchased by the then Southampton Borough Council on 10th day of February 1928 and was subject to a conveyance between His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, the Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton and the Southern Railway. In a nutshell then, the Southampton Council own all the land from around the Central Station down to Mayflower Park ie all the area outside the Western Docks. The Port owns what is left of Royal Pier, including the old Gatehouse, which is now Kutis restaurant. The Port also owns Town Quay and the Red Funnel site. As for your claim that the Council will be forced to seek a referendum about the future of Mayflower Park, I think you should rely on proper research rather than imagination. You might start with a publically available Council document dated 16 October 2012 which covers the subject of Royal Pier Waterfront. The Council actually has the power to dispose of Mayflower Park under S122 and S123 of the Local Government Act 1972. However the Council would require to obtain consent from the Secretary of State who would then have to consider the provisions of the Hampshire Act 1983 and the Soton International Boat Show Act of 1997. However the Council have decided not to dispose of Mayflower Park but have said they will work with ABP and the Crown Estate to increase the footprint of the Park from approx. 10.5 acres to 13.5 acres as part of the development brief.[/p][/quote]Oh is that why the railway had to pay out large amount of £ to Barker and Mills, because of the error the railway made in thinking that they owned to land and it was not till after they found out they did not own the foreshore, and I only gave it as an example, The city council can not do what it likes over Mayflower Park they are limited, the council are just caretakers to the park The old ticket gatehouse was built after the park was formed and built on park land, the gates to the park was moved to where they are now, the old pillars that is next to the road is the old location of the gates, the Gate house is an island of land and the pier that extended from it was clear of the ground the park land went round the gatehouse to the side of it where there use to be a set of gates to the side of the gate house, and like i said there got to be a lot deeper research into the matter as ABP;J are only 1 of a few people that as run the gatehouse and pier, as for ownership of the pier that is now in the hands of the master of wrecks and ABP;j as lost ownership of the pier. its like what happen over Cracknore Harbour ABP owned the old pier there untill they lost ownership by not maintaining it, the Local council are now the owners as they was the ones to rebuild the concrete pier along side the slipway. The moment any land connects to any part of the Park it will become part of the park and will carry the same rules and that means no buildings. southy
  • Score: -10

2:35pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Mr E says...

Southampton needs More Parks and less Flats.
Southampton needs More Parks and less Flats. Mr E
  • Score: 10

3:08pm Wed 5 Mar 14

wwozzer says...

7000 jobs? What are the hoping to employ....ants?
7000 jobs? What are the hoping to employ....ants? wwozzer
  • Score: 4

3:21pm Wed 5 Mar 14

arizonan says...

Nice cultural offer with the inclusion of a casino.

Trying to entice the old dears to part with their cash before taking a cruise?
Nice cultural offer with the inclusion of a casino. Trying to entice the old dears to part with their cash before taking a cruise? arizonan
  • Score: 2

3:28pm Wed 5 Mar 14

fat_doughnut says...

It the most uninspired piece of architecture I have ever seen.
Come on City Council don't allow this and make them work for their money and come up with something that will make people want to come ashore and explore the city!
It the most uninspired piece of architecture I have ever seen. Come on City Council don't allow this and make them work for their money and come up with something that will make people want to come ashore and explore the city! fat_doughnut
  • Score: 8

3:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

ToastyTea says...

Do you people actually believe it will happen LOL another pie in the sky idea / proposal that won't happen
Do you people actually believe it will happen LOL another pie in the sky idea / proposal that won't happen ToastyTea
  • Score: 2

3:45pm Wed 5 Mar 14

03alpe01 says...

What is the point of a public consultation? It won't change anything. All public consultations are fixed so that there is only ever one outcome. The developer wins. I like the park and think it would provide some very much needed waterfront access. BUT, the peaceful atmosphere of being in a park by the water will be ruined by the drunks in the casino. The only developments that will ever be approved in Southampton are shop/bar/restaurant/ led with of course lots and lots of flats. The only people who have any right whatsoever to be excited about this development are councillors, town planners and developers.

Where is the iconic structure that we need, so that when cruise passengers sail into Southampton they immediately know they are in Southampton? New York has the Statue of Liberty, Sydney has the Opera House, Portsmouth has the Spinnaker Tower, Liverpool has the Cunard building and several other historic buildings and Southampton just has blocks of flats en masse with a million and one bars and restaurants.

You all go on about the historic importance of the walls to the City. I agree, but ask yourselves this. What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?
What is the point of a public consultation? It won't change anything. All public consultations are fixed so that there is only ever one outcome. The developer wins. I like the park and think it would provide some very much needed waterfront access. BUT, the peaceful atmosphere of being in a park by the water will be ruined by the drunks in the casino. The only developments that will ever be approved in Southampton are shop/bar/restaurant/ led with of course lots and lots of flats. The only people who have any right whatsoever to be excited about this development are councillors, town planners and developers. Where is the iconic structure that we need, so that when cruise passengers sail into Southampton they immediately know they are in Southampton? New York has the Statue of Liberty, Sydney has the Opera House, Portsmouth has the Spinnaker Tower, Liverpool has the Cunard building and several other historic buildings and Southampton just has blocks of flats en masse with a million and one bars and restaurants. You all go on about the historic importance of the walls to the City. I agree, but ask yourselves this. What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats? 03alpe01
  • Score: 5

4:22pm Wed 5 Mar 14

RealTalkSouthampton says...

I like the idea of a tram (modern trams based on the original trams that ran through Southampton).
what I think people really want is some imagination and bold statements. History shows that the most contreversal of developments gain the most attension. this development needs to inspire more than anything else . We need one voice!
I like the idea of a tram (modern trams based on the original trams that ran through Southampton). what I think people really want is some imagination and bold statements. History shows that the most contreversal of developments gain the most attension. this development needs to inspire more than anything else . We need one voice! RealTalkSouthampton
  • Score: 2

4:32pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Sarfhampton2 says...

Will it have an ice rink?
Will it have an ice rink? Sarfhampton2
  • Score: 7

4:38pm Wed 5 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?" sotonboy84
  • Score: 8

4:45pm Wed 5 Mar 14

loosehead says...

This was a development worked on by a Labour council but ABP blocked it then a Tory council also worked on it & got ABP on side now it's actually being started under a Labour Council so well done both parties on getting this asset to the city going & Thank You ABP
This was a development worked on by a Labour council but ABP blocked it then a Tory council also worked on it & got ABP on side now it's actually being started under a Labour Council so well done both parties on getting this asset to the city going & Thank You ABP loosehead
  • Score: -6

6:07pm Wed 5 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

southy wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
southy wrote:
This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people.
Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are.
The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls
Southy
As usual you post unsubstantiated twaddle.
if you took the time and effort to research this matter you will find that the original arrangements for the purchase of Millbrook Bay by the Southern Railway Company in 1926, from the Barker Mill Estate, excluded the area east from Four Posts Creek (and including Portland Creek) to the old Town Walls (ie approx. 20/25% of the Millbrook Bay marshland area.
This eastern marshland area known at the time as West Quay -as it is today -, was purchased by the then Southampton Borough Council on 10th day of February 1928 and was subject to a conveyance between His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, the Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton and the Southern Railway.
In a nutshell then, the Southampton Council own all the land from around the Central Station down to Mayflower Park ie all the area outside the Western Docks.
The Port owns what is left of Royal Pier, including the old Gatehouse, which is now Kutis restaurant.
The Port also owns Town Quay and the Red Funnel site.
As for your claim that the Council will be forced to seek a referendum about the future of Mayflower Park, I think you should rely on proper research rather than imagination.
You might start with a publically available Council document dated 16 October 2012 which covers the subject of Royal Pier Waterfront.
The Council actually has the power to dispose of Mayflower Park under S122 and S123 of the Local Government Act 1972.
However the Council would require to obtain consent from the Secretary of State who would then have to consider the provisions of the Hampshire Act 1983 and the Soton International Boat Show Act of 1997.
However the Council have decided not to dispose of Mayflower Park but have said they will work with ABP and the Crown Estate to increase the footprint of the Park from approx. 10.5 acres to 13.5 acres as part of the development brief.
Oh is that why the railway had to pay out large amount of £ to Barker and Mills, because of the error the railway made in thinking that they owned to land and it was not till after they found out they did not own the foreshore, and I only gave it as an example, The city council can not do what it likes over Mayflower Park they are limited, the council are just caretakers to the park The old ticket gatehouse was built after the park was formed and built on park land, the gates to the park was moved to where they are now, the old pillars that is next to the road is the old location of the gates, the Gate house is an island of land and the pier that extended from it was clear of the ground the park land went round the gatehouse to the side of it where there use to be a set of gates to the side of the gate house, and like i said there got to be a lot deeper research into the matter as ABP;J are only 1 of a few people that as run the gatehouse and pier, as for ownership of the pier that is now in the hands of the master of wrecks and ABP;j as lost ownership of the pier. its like what happen over Cracknore Harbour ABP owned the old pier there untill they lost ownership by not maintaining it, the Local council are now the owners as they was the ones to rebuild the concrete pier along side the slipway.
The moment any land connects to any part of the Park it will become part of the park and will carry the same rules and that means no buildings.
Southy
At lease three wrong bits of info in your latest post.

1. If you went to the Library and spent a bit of time researching the Millbook Bay sale you will see that the an area of mud land comprising 474 acres 3 Rods and 37 Perches was purchased by the Southern Railway at sums between £50 and £100 per acre from the barker Mill Estate
Simultaneously an area of foreshore comprising 68 acres 2 Rods and 37 perches was sold for £5 per acre by Barker Mill to the Sothern Railway.
So the deal was done in one transaction to include Woodcock's Boatyard which went for the princely sum of £30
2. The new (and existing) Royal Pier gatehouse was built in 1930 before Mayflower Park was developed at the end of WW11.
Completion of Mayflower Park had to wait until the old Railway Jetty, built in 1917, was disposed of by the War Office and a lot of the landside part of the old Train Jetty was incorporated within the infill that became Mayflower Park
3. ABP still own the Pier
[quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]southy[/bold] wrote: This will have to go to every one in the city boundary;s to decide if the city sign any agreement that concern Mayflower Park the people will need to vote on it as the residence of Southampton are the owners of the Park, the council are only the caretakers on behave of the city people. Also by law any reclaimed land in front of the park become the property of the people also as the law states, ( check what happened when the railway built western docks they reclaim tidal land where it would connect to Baker&Mills land and that reclaimed land automatically became the property of Barker&Mills ), The same will apply to Mayflower Park and the park land go's behind the old Ticket office right up to the Pier station piles and underneath the Pier, the waterfront to the Park go's right up to where Red Funnels docking walls are. The ABP'j only owns the the ground that the old ticket office stands on and Red Funnel Docking walls[/p][/quote]Southy As usual you post unsubstantiated twaddle. if you took the time and effort to research this matter you will find that the original arrangements for the purchase of Millbrook Bay by the Southern Railway Company in 1926, from the Barker Mill Estate, excluded the area east from Four Posts Creek (and including Portland Creek) to the old Town Walls (ie approx. 20/25% of the Millbrook Bay marshland area. This eastern marshland area known at the time as West Quay -as it is today -, was purchased by the then Southampton Borough Council on 10th day of February 1928 and was subject to a conveyance between His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the War Department, the Alderman and Burgesses of the County Borough of Southampton and the Southern Railway. In a nutshell then, the Southampton Council own all the land from around the Central Station down to Mayflower Park ie all the area outside the Western Docks. The Port owns what is left of Royal Pier, including the old Gatehouse, which is now Kutis restaurant. The Port also owns Town Quay and the Red Funnel site. As for your claim that the Council will be forced to seek a referendum about the future of Mayflower Park, I think you should rely on proper research rather than imagination. You might start with a publically available Council document dated 16 October 2012 which covers the subject of Royal Pier Waterfront. The Council actually has the power to dispose of Mayflower Park under S122 and S123 of the Local Government Act 1972. However the Council would require to obtain consent from the Secretary of State who would then have to consider the provisions of the Hampshire Act 1983 and the Soton International Boat Show Act of 1997. However the Council have decided not to dispose of Mayflower Park but have said they will work with ABP and the Crown Estate to increase the footprint of the Park from approx. 10.5 acres to 13.5 acres as part of the development brief.[/p][/quote]Oh is that why the railway had to pay out large amount of £ to Barker and Mills, because of the error the railway made in thinking that they owned to land and it was not till after they found out they did not own the foreshore, and I only gave it as an example, The city council can not do what it likes over Mayflower Park they are limited, the council are just caretakers to the park The old ticket gatehouse was built after the park was formed and built on park land, the gates to the park was moved to where they are now, the old pillars that is next to the road is the old location of the gates, the Gate house is an island of land and the pier that extended from it was clear of the ground the park land went round the gatehouse to the side of it where there use to be a set of gates to the side of the gate house, and like i said there got to be a lot deeper research into the matter as ABP;J are only 1 of a few people that as run the gatehouse and pier, as for ownership of the pier that is now in the hands of the master of wrecks and ABP;j as lost ownership of the pier. its like what happen over Cracknore Harbour ABP owned the old pier there untill they lost ownership by not maintaining it, the Local council are now the owners as they was the ones to rebuild the concrete pier along side the slipway. The moment any land connects to any part of the Park it will become part of the park and will carry the same rules and that means no buildings.[/p][/quote]Southy At lease three wrong bits of info in your latest post. 1. If you went to the Library and spent a bit of time researching the Millbook Bay sale you will see that the an area of mud land comprising 474 acres 3 Rods and 37 Perches was purchased by the Southern Railway at sums between £50 and £100 per acre from the barker Mill Estate Simultaneously an area of foreshore comprising 68 acres 2 Rods and 37 perches was sold for £5 per acre by Barker Mill to the Sothern Railway. So the deal was done in one transaction to include Woodcock's Boatyard which went for the princely sum of £30 2. The new (and existing) Royal Pier gatehouse was built in 1930 before Mayflower Park was developed at the end of WW11. Completion of Mayflower Park had to wait until the old Railway Jetty, built in 1917, was disposed of by the War Office and a lot of the landside part of the old Train Jetty was incorporated within the infill that became Mayflower Park 3. ABP still own the Pier phil maccavity
  • Score: 4

6:16pm Wed 5 Mar 14

arizonan says...

Cunard just announced details of the 175th Transatlantic sailing from Liverpool to Halifax, Boston and New York on 4th July 2015. QM2 will leave Southampton on 2nd July for Liverpool. Bookings start on 13th March @ 1pm.
Cunard just announced details of the 175th Transatlantic sailing from Liverpool to Halifax, Boston and New York on 4th July 2015. QM2 will leave Southampton on 2nd July for Liverpool. Bookings start on 13th March @ 1pm. arizonan
  • Score: -6

6:16pm Wed 5 Mar 14

thesaint says...

i would have thought we would have had some 30 storey plus high rise buildings in the design to give us the appearance of a modern city and a bit more design in the plans to give us a bit more of a wow factor. and a big multi purpose conference music centre.
i would have thought we would have had some 30 storey plus high rise buildings in the design to give us the appearance of a modern city and a bit more design in the plans to give us a bit more of a wow factor. and a big multi purpose conference music centre. thesaint
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Dave Juson says...

Micle1974 wrote:
It sounds like a very exciting development, but like so much that is promised for Southampton......I bet its more white elephant / pie in the sky etc etc etc...

If this does go ahead and provide us with "one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations" as well as 7,000 jobs then I will eat my hat

PS I hope it happens ;)
What condiment goes best with a hat?
I’m thinking along the lines of a particularly hot horseradish sause.
[quote][p][bold]Micle1974[/bold] wrote: It sounds like a very exciting development, but like so much that is promised for Southampton......I bet its more white elephant / pie in the sky etc etc etc... If this does go ahead and provide us with "one of the nation’s most exciting seafront destinations" as well as 7,000 jobs then I will eat my hat PS I hope it happens ;)[/p][/quote]What condiment goes best with a hat? I’m thinking along the lines of a particularly hot horseradish sause. Dave Juson
  • Score: 0

9:12pm Wed 5 Mar 14

loosehead says...

funny I say well done to both major parties & again an idiot can't have the bottle to say why they don't agree with me?
After reading certain loons on this article & on Dibden Bay & Marchwood Military Port if this city loses the working Port then tough I've said how it will effect the whole area & have been attacked So I'm off.
Mayflower park Expansion will ensure the Boat show stays here can any of the objectors say what chance of a job any one has in this city if this goes then the cruise companies say enough's enough if you can't sort out your road networks & constantly blame us & cause problems for our passengers we're off?
Yes we'll have more room for containers but how many of them can you get into a hotel?
We have to have this docks & we need to keep the Boat show so why all the garbage about the river from the likes of Southy?
funny I say well done to both major parties & again an idiot can't have the bottle to say why they don't agree with me? After reading certain loons on this article & on Dibden Bay & Marchwood Military Port if this city loses the working Port then tough I've said how it will effect the whole area & have been attacked So I'm off. Mayflower park Expansion will ensure the Boat show stays here can any of the objectors say what chance of a job any one has in this city if this goes then the cruise companies say enough's enough if you can't sort out your road networks & constantly blame us & cause problems for our passengers we're off? Yes we'll have more room for containers but how many of them can you get into a hotel? We have to have this docks & we need to keep the Boat show so why all the garbage about the river from the likes of Southy? loosehead
  • Score: -5

7:50am Thu 6 Mar 14

Saint Botley says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images).

This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.
Completely agree. The original idea was to help reconnect the waterfront with the city. Sticking a barrier of flats up between the two is not the best way to achieve this. Surely that's a basic. They should be trying to enhance views of the waterfront and the walls, not obscuring one from the other. If they re-think that bit, I'm on board.
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images). This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. The original idea was to help reconnect the waterfront with the city. Sticking a barrier of flats up between the two is not the best way to achieve this. Surely that's a basic. They should be trying to enhance views of the waterfront and the walls, not obscuring one from the other. If they re-think that bit, I'm on board. Saint Botley
  • Score: 5

10:50am Thu 6 Mar 14

loosehead says...

Saint Botley wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images).

This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.
Completely agree. The original idea was to help reconnect the waterfront with the city. Sticking a barrier of flats up between the two is not the best way to achieve this. Surely that's a basic. They should be trying to enhance views of the waterfront and the walls, not obscuring one from the other. If they re-think that bit, I'm on board.
were those flats in the tory plans or is this just the next step for Labours dream flat city?
[quote][p][bold]Saint Botley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images). This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. The original idea was to help reconnect the waterfront with the city. Sticking a barrier of flats up between the two is not the best way to achieve this. Surely that's a basic. They should be trying to enhance views of the waterfront and the walls, not obscuring one from the other. If they re-think that bit, I'm on board.[/p][/quote]were those flats in the tory plans or is this just the next step for Labours dream flat city? loosehead
  • Score: -7

2:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Best way is to use the French method, build it first and hold the enquiry afterwards.
Best way is to use the French method, build it first and hold the enquiry afterwards. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

2:12pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Saint Botley says...

loosehead wrote:
Saint Botley wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images).

This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.
Completely agree. The original idea was to help reconnect the waterfront with the city. Sticking a barrier of flats up between the two is not the best way to achieve this. Surely that's a basic. They should be trying to enhance views of the waterfront and the walls, not obscuring one from the other. If they re-think that bit, I'm on board.
were those flats in the tory plans or is this just the next step for Labours dream flat city?
I don't think they were actually. The original plans looked better. Somewhere along the line the design has lost sight of it's original purpose.
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint Botley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: Good development as the area is wasted and run down currently BUT the plans need to be amended so the view from the old town to the waterfront is not blocked (as per the current images). This view from the old town has been possible for around 1000 years so it's unacceptable that it should be lost in favour of private high rise flats.[/p][/quote]Completely agree. The original idea was to help reconnect the waterfront with the city. Sticking a barrier of flats up between the two is not the best way to achieve this. Surely that's a basic. They should be trying to enhance views of the waterfront and the walls, not obscuring one from the other. If they re-think that bit, I'm on board.[/p][/quote]were those flats in the tory plans or is this just the next step for Labours dream flat city?[/p][/quote]I don't think they were actually. The original plans looked better. Somewhere along the line the design has lost sight of it's original purpose. Saint Botley
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 6 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

3:28pm Thu 6 Mar 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
phil in the plans the Tories got acceptance for by ABP the Casino was the funding for this project.
I think where the Pier is was going to be residential buildings but along the rail tracks there was no plans for flats so this was viable then so why do we need yet more flats?
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years[/p][/quote]phil in the plans the Tories got acceptance for by ABP the Casino was the funding for this project. I think where the Pier is was going to be residential buildings but along the rail tracks there was no plans for flats so this was viable then so why do we need yet more flats? loosehead
  • Score: -4

4:27pm Thu 6 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
phil in the plans the Tories got acceptance for by ABP the Casino was the funding for this project.
I think where the Pier is was going to be residential buildings but along the rail tracks there was no plans for flats so this was viable then so why do we need yet more flats?
Loose
First of all politics seems to be irrelevant to this proposed scheme.
Both Tory and labour Councils seem to have put Royal Pier at the head of the agenda but for many years the scheme floundered for a number of reasons, not least the problem of funding, especially post 2007/8
What I heard was that ABP did not really want Residential full stop as they were worried (understandably so, I suppose) that, post the bloody nose given to them by the well heeled residents of Hythe Marina who moved onto part of Dibden Bay and then complained about possible port development, that something similar could happen at Royal Pier.
Several ideas were tossed around, including Exhibition/Conferenc
e Centre/Hotel, Retaill etc etc but it was only the Residential/Casino scheme that provided the cash to fund development.
The residential block lay out has presumably be structured to satisfy ABP's requirements re noise, traffic management etc
Again, as I understand it, the prime focus of the City Council, of whatever colour, was to ensure the future of the Boat Show and the scheme appears to allow for this.
Also there was a desire to maintain the open space at Mayflower Park.
Despite what Southy said the Council could have applied to the Secretary of State to sell the land but that would have caused ructions and may not have been sanctioned in any event.
Under the submitted plans Mayflower Park will increase in size and, hopefully, will become more of a utilised asset to the city.
It amazes me how little it is used at the moment by the good people of Southampton
btw I have an open mind on flats.
Most city centre developments in the UK (and generally abroad) work on this arrangement to maximise utilisation of floor space.
The alternative, for places like Southampton, is to extend its borders to neighbouring green belt to provide large housing estates and that causes problems too.
Fact is we are an expanding country and the demand for new residential building is high and local Councils are obliged to meet Govt imposed targets
[quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years[/p][/quote]phil in the plans the Tories got acceptance for by ABP the Casino was the funding for this project. I think where the Pier is was going to be residential buildings but along the rail tracks there was no plans for flats so this was viable then so why do we need yet more flats?[/p][/quote]Loose First of all politics seems to be irrelevant to this proposed scheme. Both Tory and labour Councils seem to have put Royal Pier at the head of the agenda but for many years the scheme floundered for a number of reasons, not least the problem of funding, especially post 2007/8 What I heard was that ABP did not really want Residential full stop as they were worried (understandably so, I suppose) that, post the bloody nose given to them by the well heeled residents of Hythe Marina who moved onto part of Dibden Bay and then complained about possible port development, that something similar could happen at Royal Pier. Several ideas were tossed around, including Exhibition/Conferenc e Centre/Hotel, Retaill etc etc but it was only the Residential/Casino scheme that provided the cash to fund development. The residential block lay out has presumably be structured to satisfy ABP's requirements re noise, traffic management etc Again, as I understand it, the prime focus of the City Council, of whatever colour, was to ensure the future of the Boat Show and the scheme appears to allow for this. Also there was a desire to maintain the open space at Mayflower Park. Despite what Southy said the Council could have applied to the Secretary of State to sell the land but that would have caused ructions and may not have been sanctioned in any event. Under the submitted plans Mayflower Park will increase in size and, hopefully, will become more of a utilised asset to the city. It amazes me how little it is used at the moment by the good people of Southampton btw I have an open mind on flats. Most city centre developments in the UK (and generally abroad) work on this arrangement to maximise utilisation of floor space. The alternative, for places like Southampton, is to extend its borders to neighbouring green belt to provide large housing estates and that causes problems too. Fact is we are an expanding country and the demand for new residential building is high and local Councils are obliged to meet Govt imposed targets phil maccavity
  • Score: 4

7:30pm Thu 6 Mar 14

sotonboy84 says...

phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
I agree, any city needs funding for future development of the city but the city's heritage and historic buildings etc. should not be sold out in favour of these developments. Development can happily happen alongside the city's historic assets if the council take more of a steer & say what they want rather than the whole thing being driven by shareholders profits because the council are too scared to say anything in case the developer pulls out.

The old town is connected to the waterfront at present & this new development should be enhancing that & not building private flats that command a higher price because of their waterside view. How does this benefit the city or the people who live here?

Southampton is a port city & the waterfront is a reminder of how the city we see today built it's fortune. Blocking off the waterfront & making it available to those buying flats is criminal & in my opinion, theft of one of the city's assets.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years[/p][/quote]I agree, any city needs funding for future development of the city but the city's heritage and historic buildings etc. should not be sold out in favour of these developments. Development can happily happen alongside the city's historic assets if the council take more of a steer & say what they want rather than the whole thing being driven by shareholders profits because the council are too scared to say anything in case the developer pulls out. The old town is connected to the waterfront at present & this new development should be enhancing that & not building private flats that command a higher price because of their waterside view. How does this benefit the city or the people who live here? Southampton is a port city & the waterfront is a reminder of how the city we see today built it's fortune. Blocking off the waterfront & making it available to those buying flats is criminal & in my opinion, theft of one of the city's assets. sotonboy84
  • Score: 1

7:48pm Thu 6 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

sotonboy84 wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
I agree, any city needs funding for future development of the city but the city's heritage and historic buildings etc. should not be sold out in favour of these developments. Development can happily happen alongside the city's historic assets if the council take more of a steer & say what they want rather than the whole thing being driven by shareholders profits because the council are too scared to say anything in case the developer pulls out.

The old town is connected to the waterfront at present & this new development should be enhancing that & not building private flats that command a higher price because of their waterside view. How does this benefit the city or the people who live here?

Southampton is a port city & the waterfront is a reminder of how the city we see today built it's fortune. Blocking off the waterfront & making it available to those buying flats is criminal & in my opinion, theft of one of the city's assets.
Interesting view
Fact of life that it is only Mayflower Park land that is in the control of the City Council
As far as I can tell the rest of the Royal Pier development land is owned by ABP and the foreshore is under the control of the Crown Estate
It could be argued that building flats will provide accommodation for people to live in Southampton and pay rates which will help fund essential services
If the plan doesn't proceed the alternative is a sad relic of the Pier which I guess we all would agree looks awful
[quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years[/p][/quote]I agree, any city needs funding for future development of the city but the city's heritage and historic buildings etc. should not be sold out in favour of these developments. Development can happily happen alongside the city's historic assets if the council take more of a steer & say what they want rather than the whole thing being driven by shareholders profits because the council are too scared to say anything in case the developer pulls out. The old town is connected to the waterfront at present & this new development should be enhancing that & not building private flats that command a higher price because of their waterside view. How does this benefit the city or the people who live here? Southampton is a port city & the waterfront is a reminder of how the city we see today built it's fortune. Blocking off the waterfront & making it available to those buying flats is criminal & in my opinion, theft of one of the city's assets.[/p][/quote]Interesting view Fact of life that it is only Mayflower Park land that is in the control of the City Council As far as I can tell the rest of the Royal Pier development land is owned by ABP and the foreshore is under the control of the Crown Estate It could be argued that building flats will provide accommodation for people to live in Southampton and pay rates which will help fund essential services If the plan doesn't proceed the alternative is a sad relic of the Pier which I guess we all would agree looks awful phil maccavity
  • Score: 1

8:55pm Thu 6 Mar 14

Saint Botley says...

phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
I agree, any city needs funding for future development of the city but the city's heritage and historic buildings etc. should not be sold out in favour of these developments. Development can happily happen alongside the city's historic assets if the council take more of a steer & say what they want rather than the whole thing being driven by shareholders profits because the council are too scared to say anything in case the developer pulls out.

The old town is connected to the waterfront at present & this new development should be enhancing that & not building private flats that command a higher price because of their waterside view. How does this benefit the city or the people who live here?

Southampton is a port city & the waterfront is a reminder of how the city we see today built it's fortune. Blocking off the waterfront & making it available to those buying flats is criminal & in my opinion, theft of one of the city's assets.
Interesting view
Fact of life that it is only Mayflower Park land that is in the control of the City Council
As far as I can tell the rest of the Royal Pier development land is owned by ABP and the foreshore is under the control of the Crown Estate
It could be argued that building flats will provide accommodation for people to live in Southampton and pay rates which will help fund essential services
If the plan doesn't proceed the alternative is a sad relic of the Pier which I guess we all would agree looks awful
Sotonboy is right, I understand the economic importance of residential development but there's a balance to be struck and this isn't it. If you look at the larger impressions in an earlier version of this story, the flats to the back of Mayflower Park which line the roadside will separate the waterfront from the walls when really an attractive largely open space in that area would enhance views of both. In the past they have been complimentary features and obscuring one from the other would be a massive error in my opinion. Also, far from creating an attractive public space, this sort of division is likely to create the impression that Mayflower Park is some sort of residential garden area. The original remit was to help connect the waterfront to the city, that particular row of flats will only serve to further alienate it.
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years[/p][/quote]I agree, any city needs funding for future development of the city but the city's heritage and historic buildings etc. should not be sold out in favour of these developments. Development can happily happen alongside the city's historic assets if the council take more of a steer & say what they want rather than the whole thing being driven by shareholders profits because the council are too scared to say anything in case the developer pulls out. The old town is connected to the waterfront at present & this new development should be enhancing that & not building private flats that command a higher price because of their waterside view. How does this benefit the city or the people who live here? Southampton is a port city & the waterfront is a reminder of how the city we see today built it's fortune. Blocking off the waterfront & making it available to those buying flats is criminal & in my opinion, theft of one of the city's assets.[/p][/quote]Interesting view Fact of life that it is only Mayflower Park land that is in the control of the City Council As far as I can tell the rest of the Royal Pier development land is owned by ABP and the foreshore is under the control of the Crown Estate It could be argued that building flats will provide accommodation for people to live in Southampton and pay rates which will help fund essential services If the plan doesn't proceed the alternative is a sad relic of the Pier which I guess we all would agree looks awful[/p][/quote]Sotonboy is right, I understand the economic importance of residential development but there's a balance to be struck and this isn't it. If you look at the larger impressions in an earlier version of this story, the flats to the back of Mayflower Park which line the roadside will separate the waterfront from the walls when really an attractive largely open space in that area would enhance views of both. In the past they have been complimentary features and obscuring one from the other would be a massive error in my opinion. Also, far from creating an attractive public space, this sort of division is likely to create the impression that Mayflower Park is some sort of residential garden area. The original remit was to help connect the waterfront to the city, that particular row of flats will only serve to further alienate it. Saint Botley
  • Score: 1

9:07pm Thu 6 Mar 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
loosehead wrote:
phil maccavity wrote:
sotonboy84 wrote:
"What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?"

They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"
I can understand and have sympathy with your view.
However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services.
Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight)
So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino.
Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event.
Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower.
This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since.
The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years
phil in the plans the Tories got acceptance for by ABP the Casino was the funding for this project.
I think where the Pier is was going to be residential buildings but along the rail tracks there was no plans for flats so this was viable then so why do we need yet more flats?
Loose
First of all politics seems to be irrelevant to this proposed scheme.
Both Tory and labour Councils seem to have put Royal Pier at the head of the agenda but for many years the scheme floundered for a number of reasons, not least the problem of funding, especially post 2007/8
What I heard was that ABP did not really want Residential full stop as they were worried (understandably so, I suppose) that, post the bloody nose given to them by the well heeled residents of Hythe Marina who moved onto part of Dibden Bay and then complained about possible port development, that something similar could happen at Royal Pier.
Several ideas were tossed around, including Exhibition/Conferenc

e Centre/Hotel, Retaill etc etc but it was only the Residential/Casino scheme that provided the cash to fund development.
The residential block lay out has presumably be structured to satisfy ABP's requirements re noise, traffic management etc
Again, as I understand it, the prime focus of the City Council, of whatever colour, was to ensure the future of the Boat Show and the scheme appears to allow for this.
Also there was a desire to maintain the open space at Mayflower Park.
Despite what Southy said the Council could have applied to the Secretary of State to sell the land but that would have caused ructions and may not have been sanctioned in any event.
Under the submitted plans Mayflower Park will increase in size and, hopefully, will become more of a utilised asset to the city.
It amazes me how little it is used at the moment by the good people of Southampton
btw I have an open mind on flats.
Most city centre developments in the UK (and generally abroad) work on this arrangement to maximise utilisation of floor space.
The alternative, for places like Southampton, is to extend its borders to neighbouring green belt to provide large housing estates and that causes problems too.
Fact is we are an expanding country and the demand for new residential building is high and local Councils are obliged to meet Govt imposed targets
Phil I agree it's not political as I tried to state in my first post by congratulating both major parties for getting this project going.
What I was saying was in the plans that finally got ABP on side I don't remember the flats they're all complaining about.
I agree this park is under used I would love to see a Last Night of the proms concert there & other out door concerts with the river & cruise ships in the back ground,
the car parks are a short walk to this site & could bring in revenue to the cities coffers if they put in a low charge on the nights of the concerts
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]loosehead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sotonboy84[/bold] wrote: "What would Southampton City Council say if a developer came in and offered to knock the walls down and build flats?" They'd most probably say "where do we sign and how many flats?"[/p][/quote]I can understand and have sympathy with your view. However all Councils are under pressure nowadays to reduce their expenditure and protect essential services. Long gone are the days where some Councils would spend vast amounts of money on iconic buildings when a majority of their citizens were living in appalling conditions (have a read of George Orwell's book 'Road to Wigan Pier' if you want an insight) So Councils have to rely on private funding and in most cities this means underpinning the cost by introducing residential, retail and for Mayflower Park an additional Casino. Grant funding helped a number of favoured cities to massively regenerate but that pot of 'easy' money has been severely reduced and Southampton was always considered (wrongly) as being 'too wealthy' to benefit in any event. Mention is made of the Spinnaker Tower. This eventually cost £35m and was supposed to be fully funded by the National Lottery. It came in £11m over budget and the tax payers of Portsmouth have had to make up the shortfall ever since. The Royal Pier scheme may have its detractors but, at least, it seems that local taxpayers wont have to contribute and surely anything must be better than the carbuncle that has remained in place for so many years[/p][/quote]phil in the plans the Tories got acceptance for by ABP the Casino was the funding for this project. I think where the Pier is was going to be residential buildings but along the rail tracks there was no plans for flats so this was viable then so why do we need yet more flats?[/p][/quote]Loose First of all politics seems to be irrelevant to this proposed scheme. Both Tory and labour Councils seem to have put Royal Pier at the head of the agenda but for many years the scheme floundered for a number of reasons, not least the problem of funding, especially post 2007/8 What I heard was that ABP did not really want Residential full stop as they were worried (understandably so, I suppose) that, post the bloody nose given to them by the well heeled residents of Hythe Marina who moved onto part of Dibden Bay and then complained about possible port development, that something similar could happen at Royal Pier. Several ideas were tossed around, including Exhibition/Conferenc e Centre/Hotel, Retaill etc etc but it was only the Residential/Casino scheme that provided the cash to fund development. The residential block lay out has presumably be structured to satisfy ABP's requirements re noise, traffic management etc Again, as I understand it, the prime focus of the City Council, of whatever colour, was to ensure the future of the Boat Show and the scheme appears to allow for this. Also there was a desire to maintain the open space at Mayflower Park. Despite what Southy said the Council could have applied to the Secretary of State to sell the land but that would have caused ructions and may not have been sanctioned in any event. Under the submitted plans Mayflower Park will increase in size and, hopefully, will become more of a utilised asset to the city. It amazes me how little it is used at the moment by the good people of Southampton btw I have an open mind on flats. Most city centre developments in the UK (and generally abroad) work on this arrangement to maximise utilisation of floor space. The alternative, for places like Southampton, is to extend its borders to neighbouring green belt to provide large housing estates and that causes problems too. Fact is we are an expanding country and the demand for new residential building is high and local Councils are obliged to meet Govt imposed targets[/p][/quote]Phil I agree it's not political as I tried to state in my first post by congratulating both major parties for getting this project going. What I was saying was in the plans that finally got ABP on side I don't remember the flats they're all complaining about. I agree this park is under used I would love to see a Last Night of the proms concert there & other out door concerts with the river & cruise ships in the back ground, the car parks are a short walk to this site & could bring in revenue to the cities coffers if they put in a low charge on the nights of the concerts loosehead
  • Score: -3

6:45am Fri 7 Mar 14

cgutteridge says...

What happens to the Isle of Wight car ferry?
What happens to the Isle of Wight car ferry? cgutteridge
  • Score: 0

10:39am Fri 7 Mar 14

phil maccavity says...

cgutteridge wrote:
What happens to the Isle of Wight car ferry?
Good question
Think there was a suggestion of moving it within the Eastern Docks
30 or 50 berths were previously mentioned as a possibility
Interesting to note that there were reports of the Red Funnel terminal at East Cowes being upgraded so possibly there is some money to be shared between the two schemes
[quote][p][bold]cgutteridge[/bold] wrote: What happens to the Isle of Wight car ferry?[/p][/quote]Good question Think there was a suggestion of moving it within the Eastern Docks 30 or 50 berths were previously mentioned as a possibility Interesting to note that there were reports of the Red Funnel terminal at East Cowes being upgraded so possibly there is some money to be shared between the two schemes phil maccavity
  • Score: 0

11:48am Fri 7 Mar 14

loosehead says...

phil maccavity wrote:
cgutteridge wrote:
What happens to the Isle of Wight car ferry?
Good question
Think there was a suggestion of moving it within the Eastern Docks
30 or 50 berths were previously mentioned as a possibility
Interesting to note that there were reports of the Red Funnel terminal at East Cowes being upgraded so possibly there is some money to be shared between the two schemes
In the Tory plan Southampton city centre vision it states the ferries will be relocated. the picture above where the tall ship is is thinner than the photo of the tory plan & longer as the Tory plan had one building at the end but had housing across & then a wide marina then a pier/jetty then another marina.
It also had a clear view from the road to the waterfront so why if this is what ABP agreed to did this council change it?
Yes this project is good for the city yes all parties (Labour & Tory) pressed for this to happen but why the flats blocking the view from the roadside?
please can i have more than 4 thumbs down I'm feeling a bit ignored?
[quote][p][bold]phil maccavity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cgutteridge[/bold] wrote: What happens to the Isle of Wight car ferry?[/p][/quote]Good question Think there was a suggestion of moving it within the Eastern Docks 30 or 50 berths were previously mentioned as a possibility Interesting to note that there were reports of the Red Funnel terminal at East Cowes being upgraded so possibly there is some money to be shared between the two schemes[/p][/quote]In the Tory plan Southampton city centre vision it states the ferries will be relocated. the picture above where the tall ship is is thinner than the photo of the tory plan & longer as the Tory plan had one building at the end but had housing across & then a wide marina then a pier/jetty then another marina. It also had a clear view from the road to the waterfront so why if this is what ABP agreed to did this council change it? Yes this project is good for the city yes all parties (Labour & Tory) pressed for this to happen but why the flats blocking the view from the roadside? please can i have more than 4 thumbs down I'm feeling a bit ignored? loosehead
  • Score: 0

3:08am Sun 16 Mar 14

4abettersouthampton says...

Thought this was a unique opportunity for southampton

looks like a bad interpretation of copenhagen
Thought this was a unique opportunity for southampton looks like a bad interpretation of copenhagen 4abettersouthampton
  • 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